Case Name: Chaltu Assefa WAKENE, Petitioner, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; John Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney General, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-06-04
Citations: 65 F. App'x 484
Docket Number: No. 02-1725
Parties: Chaltu Assefa WAKENE, Petitioner, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; John Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney General, Respondents.
Judges: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 65
Pages: 484–484

Head Matter:
Chaltu Assefa WAKENE, Petitioner, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; John Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney General, Respondents.
No. 02-1725.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 22, 2003.
Decided June 4, 2003.
Mikre-Miehael Ayele, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant Director, Ann Carroll Varnon, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Chaltu Assefa Wakene, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board"). The order denied her motion to reopen the Board's dismissal of her appeal from the immigration judge's order denying her applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board's order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Wakene's motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2003); 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: Wakene, No. [ AXXXXX-XXX ] (B.I.A. June 4, 2002). 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.