Court Opinion

ID: 9374428
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 21:00:51.072638+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:47.120185
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1865      Doc: 15         Filed: 02/21/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-1865

        ALVINE CASSANDRA NONO FOTSO,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: April 14, 2022                                    Decided: February 21, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Godwill C. Tachi, TACHI LAW FIRM, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
        Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Assistant
        Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, Matthew A. Spurlock, Trial Attorney, Office
        of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
        JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1865      Doc: 15        Filed: 02/21/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Alvine Cassandra Nono Fotso, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for

        review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion for

        reconsideration. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s order and

        find no abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (b)(1) (2021). Accordingly, we deny the

        petition for review. In re Nono Fotso, (B.I.A. July 12, 2021). 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