Nkong v. Ashcroft , 74 F. App'x 261 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-1082
    FIDELIS ATABONG NKONG,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals. (A27-862-592)
    Submitted:   July 31, 2003                 Decided:   August 28, 2003
    Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Danielle L.C. Beach-Oswald, NOTO & OSWALD, P.C., Washington, D.C.,
    for Petitioner.    Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney
    General, Michael P. Lindemann, Assistant Director, Douglas E.
    Ginsburg, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Fidelis Atabong Nkong, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
    petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals      (“Board”)   affirming,   without    opinion,   the    immigration
    judge’s denial of his waiver application pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
    § 1186a(c)(4) (2000).         This section provides that the Attorney
    General, in his discretion, may remove the conditional basis placed
    upon    an    alien’s    permanent    resident   status     (and   waive   the
    requirement that the alien and his citizen spouse jointly file a
    petition for removal of the conditional basis) upon a showing that
    the alien’s marriage was entered into in good faith.               Because we
    find that the immigration judge did not abuse his discretion in
    finding that Nkong did not enter into his marriage in good faith,
    we deny the petition for review.        See Nyonzele v. INS, 
    83 F.3d 975
    ,
    979 (8th Cir. 1996); Matter of Laureano, 
    19 I. & N. Dec. 1
    , 2-3
    (BIA 1983).      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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-1082

Citation Numbers: 74 F. App'x 261

Judges: Luttig, Per Curiam, Widener, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 8/28/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023