The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
01-1176•Jennifer Yawa Sedodo Smith, a/k/a Jennifer Sedodo v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 518 9th Cir. 2001
01-1176Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 10, 2001
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-1176
JENNIFER YAWA SEDODO SMITH, a/k/a Jennifer
Sedodo,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE;
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (No. A28-068-154)
Submitted: September 20, 2001 Decided: October 10, 2001
Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marc Seguinot, BOSE LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C., Arlington, Virginia, for
Petitioner. Stuart E. Schiffer, Acting Assistant Attorney General,
Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant Director, Donald A. Couvillon, Office
of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Jennifer Yawa Sedodo Smith, a native and citizen of Ghana,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Ap-
peals (Board) denying her application for suspension of deporta-
tion. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s decision and
conclude that Smith is ineligible for that relief because she
failed to accrue seven years of continuous physical presence prior
to the initiation of deportation proceedings against her. See Ram
v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 518 (9th Cir. 2001); McBride v. INS, 238 F.3d
371, 375-77 (5th Cir. 2001); Afolayan v. INS, 219 F.3d 784, 788-89
(8th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s order. 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.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.