Maru Bulessa v. Michael Mukasey, No. 08-1522 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1522 MARU DABA BULESSA, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: November 17, 2008 Decided: December 4, 2008 Before MICHAEL and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alan M. Parra, LAW OFFICE OF ALAN M. PARRA, ESQUIRE, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Brianne Whelan Cohen, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Maru Daba Bulessa, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of the order from the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge s order denying his motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to reopen. This court reviews the denial of Bulessa s motion for reconsideration Mukasey, 541 for F.3d abuse 257, 263 of discretion. (4th Cir. See 2008). Ogundipe v. motion for A reconsideration must specify the errors of law or fact in the previous decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C) § 1003.23(b)(2) (2008). (2006); see also 8 C.F.R. We will reverse the Board s decision for abuse of discretion only if it is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. 2006). Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 745 (4th Cir. [A]dministrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). We find the Board did not abuse its discretion in affirming the immigration judge s order denying the motion to reconsider. review present the We further note we do not have jurisdiction to Board s warranting finding sua that sponte there were reopening. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1000, 1004 (8th Cir. 2008). 2 no See circumstances Tamenut v. Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny argument the petition because the for facts review. and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 3
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.
