Moltotal v. Holder

Fourth Circuit

Moltotal v. Holder

326 F. App'x 695

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided June 18, 2009·No. No. 08-1869·Published

Opinion

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Samuel Adinew Moltotal, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find no abuse of discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2009). We therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Moltotal (B.I.A. July 9, 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

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Samuel Adinew Moltotal, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find no abuse of discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2009). We therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Moltotal (B.I.A. July 9, 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.

Moltotal v. Holder, 326 F. App'x 695 (4th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

326 F. App'x 695 (Moltotal v. Holder) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related