Shiferaw v. Ashcroft

Fourth Circuit

Shiferaw v. Ashcroft

100 F. App'x 191

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided June 10, 2004·No. No. 03-2262·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Enque Shiferaw, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Shiferaw’s motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2003); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review on the reasoning of the Board. See In re: Shiferaw, No. A78343-175 (BIA Sept. 23, 2003). 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.

Enque Shiferaw, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Shiferaw’s motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2003); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review on the reasoning of the Board. See In re: Shiferaw, No. A78343-175 (BIA Sept. 23, 2003). 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

Shiferaw v. Ashcroft, 100 F. App'x 191 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

100 F. App'x 191 (Shiferaw v. Ashcroft) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related