Amadu Koroma v. Merrick Garland

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1225 Doc: 20 Filed: 12/06/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1225

AMADU MOHAMED KOROMA,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted: November 18, 2022 Decided: December 6, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Buxton Reed Bailey, BUXTON R. BAILEY, P.C., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Zoe Heller, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jonathan Robbins, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1225 Doc: 20 Filed: 12/06/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Amadu Mohamed Koroma, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, petitions for review

of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying Koroma’s motion for

reconsideration of the Board’s prior order dismissing Koroma’s appeal of the immigration

judge’s decision pretermitting his application for cancellation of removal and ordering

Koroma removed to Sierra Leone. Upon review of the record, we discern no abuse of

discretion in the Board’s rationale for denying the underlying motion for reconsideration.

See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2022); Mejia-Velasquez v. Garland, 26 F.4th 193, 205 (4th Cir.

2022) (providing standard of review and explaining that the Board abuses its discretion

only if it “acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law” (internal quotation marks

omitted)). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.

See In re Koroma (B.I.A. Feb. 25, 2022). 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