Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
BECKE v. MUKASEY, 295 Fed.Appx. 556 (4th Cir. 2008)
295 Fed.Appx. 556
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2008-10-06
- Topic
- general
BECKE v. MUKASEY, 295 Fed.Appx. 556 (4th Cir. 2008) Arthur Luma BECKE, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,Respondent. No. 08-1028.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Submitted: September 24, 2008.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed BECKE v. MUKASEY, 295 Fed.Appx. 556 (4th Cir. 2008). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
BECKE v. MUKASEY,295 Fed.Appx. 556(4th Cir. 2008)
Arthur Luma BECKE, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-1028.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 24, 2008.
Decided: October 6, 2008.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Peter Nyoh, Peter Nyoh Associates, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Elizabeth Petrela Papez, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Arthur Luma Becke, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") denying his motion to reconsider its prior order, which denied Becke's motion to reopen removal proceedings based on changed country conditions in Cameroon. We have reviewed the record and the Board's order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider.See8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2008);Jean v. Gonzales,435 F.3d 475,481(4th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.See In re: Becke(B.I.A. Nov. 13, 2007). 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.
- [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ↩