Mboh Mbong v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 09-1925 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1925 BELTHA MBONG MBOH, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: April 2, 2010 Decided: May 10, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Irena I. Karpinski, LAW OFFICES OF IRENA I. KARPINSKI, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew B. Insenga, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Beltha Mbong Mboh petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge s order denying her motion for a continuance and reaffirming the denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal Convention Against Torture. and withholding under the We deny the petition for review. Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (2009), the immigration judge See Jean v. may grant a continuance for good cause shown. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 483 (4th Cir. 2006). The immigration judge s refusal to grant a continuance is thus subject to review for abuse of discretion. Cir. 1998). it was made departed The denial of a continuance will be upheld unless without from impermissible Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 231 (4th a rational established basis, e.g., particular race or group. explanation, policies, invidious or it it inexplicably rested discrimination on an against a Lendo v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 439, 441 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Onyeme, 146 F.3d at 231). We find no abuse of discretion. the petition for review. Accordingly, we deny 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 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.