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)
02-1753•Jacqueline Gerda Davies v. Bernal, Assistant Director, Mary Jane Candaux, Office of Immigration Litigation,…
02-1753Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitApr 9, 2003
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1753
JACQUELINE GERDA DAVIES,
Petitioner,
versus
U. S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A27-916-916)
Submitted: January 31, 2003 Decided: April 9, 2003
Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant
Attorney General, Civil Division, David V. Bernal, Assistant
Director, Mary Jane Candaux, Office of Immigration Litigation,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jacqueline Gerda Davies, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone,
seeks review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“Board”) denying her claims for suspension of deportation and
voluntary departure and ordering her deported. We find that
substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that Davies’
failure to notify the INS of address changes was willful and not
reasonably excusable. We further find we are without jurisdiction
to review the Board’s discretionary decision that Davies was
ineligible for suspension of deportation or voluntary removal.
Okpa v. INS, 266 F.3d 313, 317 (4th Cir. 2001). Finally, we find
substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Davies did
not establish good moral character.
Therefore, we deny Davies’ 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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.