Case Name: Soraya F. FARES; Marie Assa'ad-Faltas, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; United States Department of State; Board of Immigration Appeals, Defendants-Appellees, and Donald Young; Charlie Cross; Angela Dinueno; Keith Hunsacher; Dan Peletier; Terry C. Bird, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-04-24
Citations: 11 F. App'x 137
Docket Number: No. 99-2689
Parties: Soraya F. FARES; Marie Assa’ad-Faltas, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; United States Department of State; Board of Immigration Appeals, Defendants-Appellees, and Donald Young; Charlie Cross; Angela Dinueno; Keith Hunsacher; Dan Peletier; Terry C. Bird, Defendants.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 11
Pages: 137–137

Head Matter:
Soraya F. FARES; Marie Assa’ad-Faltas, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; United States Department of State; Board of Immigration Appeals, Defendants-Appellees, and Donald Young; Charlie Cross; Angela Dinueno; Keith Hunsacher; Dan Peletier; Terry C. Bird, Defendants.
No. 99-2689.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 30, 2001.
Decided April 24, 2001.
Soraya F. Fares, Marie Assa’ad-Faltas, pro se. John Stephen Hogan, Linda Susan Wendtland, David William Ogden, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellees.
Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Soraya F. Fares and Marie Assa'ad-Faltas appeal the district court's orders denying relief on their challenges to ongoing immigration proceedings and their claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), and denying their motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Fares v. INS, No. CA-96-540-3-P (W.D.N.C. filed Oct. 27, 1998, entered Oct. 28, 1998; filed Oct. 8, 1999, entered Oct. 12, 1999; filed Jan. 10, 2000, entered Jan. 12, 2000). 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.
AFFIRMED.