Court Opinion

ID: 9831357
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:01:07.008363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:33.848445
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1432      Doc: 18         Filed: 08/31/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1432

        AMOS ZEITH BENKA COKER,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

        On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

        Submitted: August 29, 2023                                        Decided: August 31, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Amos Zeith Benka Coker, Petitioner Pro Se. Vanessa M. Otero, Office of Immigration
        Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
        Respondent.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1432         Doc: 18     Filed: 08/31/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Amos Zeith Benka Coker, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, petitions for review

        of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the

        immigration judge’s decision on the ground that Coker waived his right to appeal. Upon

        review of the record, we agree with the Board’s holding that Coker’s administrative

        appellate waiver was knowing and intelligent and, thus, valid. Accordingly, we deny the

        petition for review, see In re Coker (B.I.A. Apr. 6, 2023), and deny Coker’s motion to

        appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

        are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                             PETITION DENIED

                                                    2