Barbara Coston v. Eric Holder, Jr.

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedNovember 3, 2011
Docket11-1140
StatusUnpublished

This text of Barbara Coston v. Eric Holder, Jr. (Barbara Coston v. Eric Holder, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Barbara Coston v. Eric Holder, Jr., (4th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1140

BARBARA COSTON, a/k/a Barbara Kish, a/k/a Barbara Ayim,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted: October 27, 2011 Decided: November 3, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Michael C. Heyse, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Barbara Coston, a native and citizen of Ghana,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reissue its decision of

April 29, 2010, which upheld the immigration judge’s denial of

Coston’s application for adjustment of status. We have reviewed

the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not

abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See Ping Chen v.

U.S. Att’y Gen., 502 F.3d 73, 75 (2d Cir. 2007) (finding that a

motion to reissue is treated as a motion to reopen and reviewed

for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we deny the petition for

review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Coston

(B.I.A. Jan. 20, 2011). 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ping Chen v. U.S. Attorney General
502 F.3d 73 (Second Circuit, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Barbara Coston v. Eric Holder, Jr., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barbara-coston-v-eric-holder-jr-ca4-2011.