Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Kenneth Gentles v. Eric Holder, JR., 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    Kenneth Leopold Gentles, a native of Jamaica, petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge's denial of a continuance. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied the petition. The court concluded that the denial of a continuance was not an abuse of discretion. It also found that the BIA correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction over issues related to the denial of I-360 petitions and that Gentles was removable as charged.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-02-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-2071

    Original Title

    Kenneth Gentles v. Eric Holder, Jr., 4th Cir. (2015)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Kenneth Leopold Gentles, a native of Jamaica, petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge's denial of a continuance. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied the petition. The court concluded that the denial of a continuance was not an abuse of discretion. It also found that the BIA correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction over issues related to the denial of I-360 petitions and that Gentles was removable as charged.

    Copyright:

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

    Kenneth Gentles v. Eric Holder, JR., 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Kenneth Leopold Gentles, a native of Jamaica, petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge's denial of a continuance. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied the petition. The court concluded that the denial of a continuance was not an abuse of discretion. It also found that the BIA correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction over issues related to the denial of I-360 petitions and that Gentles was removable as charged.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 14-2071

    KENNETH LEOPOLD GENTLES,


    Kenneth Leopold Gentiles,

    a/k/a

    Kenneth

    Gentle,

    a/k/a

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

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


    Appeals.

    Submitted:

    February 24, 2015

    Decided:

    February 27, 2015

    Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Kenneth Leopold Gentles, Petitioner Pro Se.


    Joyce R. Branda,
    Acting Assistant Attorney General, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr.,
    Yanal Harbi Yousef, 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:
    Kenneth Leopold Gentles, a native and citizen of Jamaica,
    petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals

    (Board)

    dismissing

    his

    appeal

    judges order denying a continuance.

    from

    the

    immigration

    We deny the petition for

    review.
    We conclude that the denial of the motion for a continuance
    was not an abuse of discretion.

    Lendo v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d

    439, 441 (4th Cir. 2007); Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 231 (4th
    Cir. 1998).

    We also conclude that the Board correctly found

    that it was without jurisdiction to consider issues related to


    the denial of the I-360 petitions and that Gentles was removable
    as charged.
    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

    this

    court

    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.


    PETITION DENIED

    You might also like