Filed: Sep. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2261 P.C., Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: August 10, 2015 Decided: September 2, 2015 Before KING, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. W. Rob Heroy, GOODMAN, CARR PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorn
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2261 P.C., Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: August 10, 2015 Decided: September 2, 2015 Before KING, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. W. Rob Heroy, GOODMAN, CARR PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorne..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2261 P.C., Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: August 10, 2015 Decided: September 2, 2015 Before KING, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. W. Rob Heroy, GOODMAN, CARR PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant Director, Sheri R. Glaser, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: P.C., a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s order and find no abuse of discretion. We therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: P.C. (B.I.A. Oct. 17, 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
