Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Ebuzoeme v. Holder, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Oyoyo Adanna Ebuzoeme's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of her 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 denying the motion under the regulations. The court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-11-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-1105

    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 Oyoyo Adanna Ebuzoeme's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of her 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 denying the motion under the regulations. The court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decision.

    Copyright:

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

    Ebuzoeme v. Holder, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied Oyoyo Adanna Ebuzoeme's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of her 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 denying the motion under the regulations. The court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decision.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 09-1105

    OYOYO ADANNA EBUZOEME, a/k/a Oyoyo Adanna Ofurum,


    Petitioner,
    v.
    ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
    Respondent.

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


    Appeals.

    Submitted:

    August 21, 2009

    Decided:

    November 18, 2009

    Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,


    Virginia, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney
    General, Michelle G. Latour, Assistant Director, Joseph A.
    OConnell, 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:
    Oyoyo Adanna Ebuzoeme, a native and citizen of the
    United Kingdom, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
    Immigration

    Appeals

    (Board)

    denying

    her

    motion

    to

    reopen

    immigration proceedings.

    We have reviewed the record and the

    Boards

    that

    order

    and

    find

    the

    discretion in denying the motion.


    (2009).

    24, 2008).

    before

    did

    not

    abuse

    its

    See 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(a)

    Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the

    reasons stated by the Board.

    legal

    Board

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

    contentions
    the

    See In re: Ebuzoeme (B.I.A. Dec.

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    PETITION DENIED

    You might also like