Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Miguel Alejandrez Tlaxcala v. Matthew Whitaker, 18-1603 (2019)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 18-1603 Visitors: 1
Filed: Feb. 12, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1603 MIGUEL ALEJANDREZ TLAXCALA, Petitioner, v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: January 24, 2019 Decided: February 12, 2019 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark J. Devine, Charleston, South Carolina, for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1603 MIGUEL ALEJANDREZ TLAXCALA, Petitioner, v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: January 24, 2019 Decided: February 12, 2019 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark J. Devine, Charleston, South Carolina, for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Assistant Director, Lindsay C. Corliss, Trial Attorney, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Miguel Alejandrez Tlaxcala, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decision of the immigration judge (“IJ”) granting the Attorney General’s motion to recalendar Tlaxcala’s case and denying Tlaxcala’s motion for a continuance. We deny the petition for review. We have reviewed the record and Tlaxcala’s arguments and conclude that the IJ did not abuse his discretion by recalendaring the case and denying the motion for a continuance. 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer