Case Name: Marek BUDNIK, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-08
Citations: 212 F. App'x 228
Docket Number: No. 05-2407
Parties: Marek BUDNIK, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 212
Pages: 228–228

Head Matter:
Marek BUDNIK, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-2407.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 22, 2006.
Decided: Jan. 8, 2007.
Irena I. Karpinski, Law Offices of Irena I. Karpinski, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Kristin K. Edison, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Marek Budnik, a native of Poland and a citizen of Germany, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") affirming the immigration judge's order denying his motion to reconsider its prior order, which denied his application for a waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. We have reviewed the record and the Board's order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in affirming the decision of the immigration judge. See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1229a(c)(6) (West 2005); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(2) (2006); 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: Budnik, No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ] (B.I.A. Nov. 30, 2005). 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.