Case ID: f-appx_82/html/0842-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Prudencia MANCHO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
    No. 03-1201.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 26, 2003.
    Decided Dec. 18, 2003.
    
      Morton SHar, World Organization Against Torture, USA, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.
    Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Mark C. Walters, Assistant Director, James E. Grimes, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Prudencia Mancho, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s order denying her motion to reopen immigration proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in upholding the immigration judge’s denial of Mancho’s motion to reopen. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review on the reasoning of the Board. See In re: Mancho, No. [ AXXXXX-XXX ] (B.I.A. Jan. 22, 2003). We note that the Attorney General has filed a motion for summary affirmance in this case. Because we find that this is not an “extraordinary case” warranting summary disposition, we deny the motion. See 4th Cir. R. 37(f). 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