Richard Asare v. Loretta Lynch

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedNovember 23, 2016
Docket16-1479
StatusUnpublished

This text of Richard Asare v. Loretta Lynch (Richard Asare v. Loretta Lynch) 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
Richard Asare v. Loretta Lynch, (4th Cir. 2016).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1479

RICHARD ASARE,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted: November 21, 2016 Decided: November 23, 2016

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerald Karikari, KARIKARI & ASSOCIATES, P.C., New York, New York, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Song E. Park, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Richard Asare, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)

denying Asare’s motion to reconsider its decision upholding the

Immigration Judge’s denial of his motion for a continuance. We

have reviewed the administrative record and Asare’s claims, and

find them to be without merit. We accordingly find no abuse of

discretion in the denial of reconsideration, see Narine v.

Holder, 559 F.3d 246, 249 (4th Cir. 2009), and deny the petition

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

(B.I.A. Mar. 31, 2016). 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

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

Related

Narine v. Holder
559 F.3d 246 (Fourth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Richard Asare v. Loretta Lynch, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-asare-v-loretta-lynch-ca4-2016.