Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Ramirez v. Gonzales, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Rogelio Ramirez's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) dismissal of his appeal from the immigration judge's denial of his second motion to reopen immigration proceedings. The Court reviewed the record and the BIA's order and found that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in upholding the denial of Ramirez's motion to reopen. Accordingly, the Court denied the petition for review for the reasons stated by the BIA.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-08-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-2434

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Rogelio Ramirez's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) dismissal of his appeal from the immigration judge's denial of his second motion to reopen immigration proceedings. The Court reviewed the record and the BIA's order and found that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in upholding the denial of Ramirez's motion to reopen. Accordingly, the Court denied the petition for review for the reasons stated by the BIA.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5 views2 pages

    Ramirez v. Gonzales, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Rogelio Ramirez's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) dismissal of his appeal from the immigration judge's denial of his second motion to reopen immigration proceedings. The Court reviewed the record and the BIA's order and found that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in upholding the denial of Ramirez's motion to reopen. Accordingly, the Court denied the petition for review for the reasons stated by the BIA.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-2434

    ROGELIO RAMIREZ,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
    Respondent.

    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration


    Appeals. (A70-674-170)

    Submitted:

    July 18, 2005

    Decided:

    August 3, 2005

    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Ivan Yacub, LAW OFFICE OF IVAN YACUB, Falls Church, Virginia, for
    Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M.
    Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Song E. Park, UNITED
    STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Rogelio

    Ramirez,

    native

    and

    citizen

    of

    Mexico,

    petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration


    Appeals

    (Board)

    judges

    denial

    dismissing

    of

    his

    his

    second

    appeal

    motion

    from
    to

    the

    immigration

    reopen

    immigration

    proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the Boards order and
    find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in upholding the
    denial of Ramirezs motion.
    323-24 (1992).
    the

    reasons

    A70-674-170

    See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314,

    Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for

    stated
    (B.I.A.

    by

    the

    Oct.

    Board.

    18,

    2004).*

    See

    In

    We

    re:

    Ramirez,

    dispense

    with

    No.
    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

    In his brief, Ramirez challenges the fact that his decision


    was rendered by a single Board member without following the proper
    regulations based on his mistaken belief that his case was decided
    pursuant to the regulatory procedures governing orders that
    summarily affirm without opinion.
    Instead, Ramirezs case was
    decided by a single Board member pursuant to 8 C.F.R.
    1003.1(e)(5) (2005). Thus, we find that Ramirezs claim that the
    Board failed to follow its own regulations is clearly without
    merit.
    - 2 -

    You might also like