Mohamad Ichsanul Fikri v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 231 4th Cir. 1998 setting forth standard of review . We have also…

*Judge Luttig was a member of the original panel but did not
participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by a quorum of
the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2199
MOHAMAD ICHSANUL FIKRI,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-238-660)
Submitted: April 19, 2006 Decided: October 30, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, * and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Winston W. Tsai, Bethesda, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James E. Grimes, Leslie McKay,
Senior Ligation Counsel, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Mohamad Ichsanul Fikri, a native and citizen of
Indonesia, appeals an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s order
granting him voluntary departure and entering an alternate order of
removal to Indonesia. Specifically, Fikri contends that the Board
erred in upholding the immigration judge’s denial of his motion for
a fourth continuance.
Based on our review of the record, we find that the Board
did not abuse its discretion in upholding the denial of Fikri’s
motion for a continuance. See Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 231
(4th Cir. 1998) (setting forth standard of review). We have also
reviewed Fikri’s claim that the Board rendered its decision in
violation of his rights to due process of law. As Fikri fails to
establish that his rights were “transgressed in such a way as is
likely to impact the results of the proceeding,” Rusu v. INS, 296
F.3d 316, 320-21 (4th Cir. 2002), we find that he is not entitled
to relief on this claim.
Accordingly, 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 --