Filed: Jun. 26, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2221 JEAN ROGER DALLE ESSOKA, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 26, 2015 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danielle Beach-Oswald, Terese Tadros Ibarra, BEACH-OSWALD IMMIGRATION LAW ASSOCIATES, PC, Washington, D.C., for
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2221 JEAN ROGER DALLE ESSOKA, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 26, 2015 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danielle Beach-Oswald, Terese Tadros Ibarra, BEACH-OSWALD IMMIGRATION LAW ASSOCIATES, PC, Washington, D.C., for ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2221
JEAN ROGER DALLE ESSOKA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 26, 2015
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danielle Beach-Oswald, Terese Tadros Ibarra, BEACH-OSWALD
IMMIGRATION LAW ASSOCIATES, PC, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Joseph
A. O’Connell, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jean Roger Dalle Essoka, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen. We have
reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the
Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as
untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c) (2014). Accordingly,
we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the
Board. See In re: Dalle Essoka (B.I.A. Oct. 8, 2014). 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