Filed: Feb. 26, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1681 EPHRAIM TAMBI MFORSONG, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 18, 2014 Decided: February 26, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICES OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Stuart F.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1681 EPHRAIM TAMBI MFORSONG, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 18, 2014 Decided: February 26, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICES OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Stuart F. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1681
EPHRAIM TAMBI MFORSONG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: February 18, 2014 Decided: February 26, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICES OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
General, Blair T. O’Connor, Assistant Director, Juria L. Jones,
Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ephraim Tambi Mforsong, a native and citizen of
Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration
Judge’s decision denying his application for a waiver of
inadmissibility. We have reviewed the agency decisions and
Mforsong’s claims and conclude that we lack jurisdiction over
the petition for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i)(1), (2) (2012);
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D) (2012). Accordingly, we
dismiss the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED
2