Lyn Alfred v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405-06 1995 holding

04-1001Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit19.11.2004

Gesamter Gesetzestext

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1001
LYN ALFRED,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A73-537-625)
Submitted: November 8, 2004 Decided: November 19, 2004
Before WILKINSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and Norman K. MOON,
United States District Judge for the Western District of Virginia,
sitting by designation.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alex Chanthunya, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright,
Assistant Director, Larry P. Cote, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Lyn Alfred, a native and citizen of Nigeria, seeks review
of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”). On
June 9, 2003, the Board denied Alfred’s motion to reopen removal
proceedings. Alfred moved the Board to reconsider that order, and
on December 3, 2003, the Board denied the motion for
reconsideration. Alfred’s petition for review is timely only as to
the Board’s order denying reconsideration. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)
(2000) (petition for review must be filed within thirty days of
final order of removal); see Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405-06
(1995) (holding order of removal and denial of motion to reconsider
are separate final orders, each subject to relevant time limit for
review).
We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and
find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the
motion for reconsideration. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004).
Therefore we deny the petition for review. 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

-- 2 of 2 --

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.