Mbongo v. INS ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 99-6355
    FLAUBERT MBONGO,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
    trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.
    (CA-98-285-3, A74-868-244)
    Submitted:   March 20, 2000                 Decided:   March 20, 2000
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jonathan K. Tycko, Seth M. M. Stodder, GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER,
    L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. David W. Ogden, Acting
    Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Lindemann, Assistant Di-
    rector, Ethan B. Kanter, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
    PER CURIAM:
    Flaubert Mbongo, a native and citizen of Cameroon, seeks to
    petition for review from two orders of the Board of Immigration Ap-
    peals (Board):   (1) the October 16, 1997 order dismissing Mbongo’s
    motion to remand and dismissing his appeal from the March 14, 1997
    immigration court decision denying Mbongo’s applications for asylum
    and withholding removal and (2) the March 12, 1998 order denying
    Mbongo’s motion for reconsideration.   Mbongo’s petition for review
    is timely only as to the Board’s order denying reconsideration.
    See Stone v. INS, 
    514 U.S. 386
     (1995).
    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. § 3.2
    (a) (1999); M.A. v. INS,
    
    899 F.2d 304
     (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc). Therefore, we deny Mbongo’s
    petition for review and affirm the Board’s order. We dispense with
    oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
    ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.
    PETITION DENIED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-6355

Filed Date: 4/20/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014