Gnago v. Holder

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 16, 2009
Docket08-1685
StatusUnpublished

This text of Gnago v. Holder (Gnago v. Holder) 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
Gnago v. Holder, (4th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1685

SERGE GERVAIS GNAGO,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., United States Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted: February 18, 2009 Decided: March 16, 2009

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Jem C. Sponzo, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Serge Gervais Gnago, a native and citizen of the Ivory

Coast, petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reconsider

its prior order, which denied Gnago’s motion to reopen removal

proceedings based on changed country conditions in the Ivory

Coast. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and

find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the

motion to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2008); Jean v.

Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 481 (4th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we

grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny the petition

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

Gnago (B.I.A. May 19, 2008). 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Gnago v. Holder, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gnago-v-holder-ca4-2009.