Filed: Feb. 27, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2071 KENNETH LEOPOLD GENTLES, a/k/a Kenneth Gentle, a/k/a Kenneth Leopold Gentiles, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 24, 2015 Decided: February 27, 2015 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Leopold Gentles, Petitioner Pro Se. Joyce R.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2071 KENNETH LEOPOLD GENTLES, a/k/a Kenneth Gentle, a/k/a Kenneth Leopold Gentiles, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 24, 2015 Decided: February 27, 2015 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Leopold Gentles, Petitioner Pro Se. Joyce R. B..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2071
KENNETH LEOPOLD GENTLES, a/k/a Kenneth Gentle, a/k/a
Kenneth Leopold Gentiles,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: February 24, 2015 Decided: February 27, 2015
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth Leopold Gentles, Petitioner Pro Se. Joyce R. Branda,
Acting Assistant Attorney General, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr.,
Yanal Harbi Yousef, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Kenneth Leopold Gentles, a native and citizen of Jamaica,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s order denying a continuance. We deny the petition for
review.
We conclude that the denial of the motion for a continuance
was not an abuse of discretion. Lendo v. Gonzales,
493 F.3d
439, 441 (4th Cir. 2007); Onyeme v. INS,
146 F.3d 227, 231 (4th
Cir. 1998). We also conclude that the Board correctly found
that it was without jurisdiction to consider issues related to
the denial of the I-360 petitions and that Gentles was removable
as charged.
Accordingly, we deny 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 DENIED
2