Mesgun v. Mukasey

Fourth Circuit

Mesgun v. Mukasey

285 F. App'x 997

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 8, 2008

Docket07-2136

StatusUnpublished

This text of 285 F. App'x 997 (Mesgun v. Mukasey) 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

Mesgun v. Mukasey, 285 F. App'x 997 (4th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Metslal Mesgun, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying as untimely her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have reviewed the administrative record and find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2007) (“The decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen ... is within the discretion of the Board----”); Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 744 (4th Cir.2006) (stating abuse of discretion standard), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1147, 166 L.Ed.2d 997 (2007). We therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Mesgun (B.I.A. Nov. 6, 2007). 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

PER CURIAM:

Metslal Mesgun, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying as untimely her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have reviewed the administrative record and find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2007) (“The decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen ... is within the discretion of the Board----”); Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 744 (4th Cir.2006) (stating abuse of discretion standard), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1147, 166 L.Ed.2d 997 (2007). We therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Mesgun (B.I.A. Nov. 6, 2007). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 F. App'x 997, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mesgun-v-mukasey-ca4-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack