Melissa Olympio v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 08-1551 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1551 MELISSA AYODELE OLYMPIO, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 25, 2009 Decided: March 16, 2009 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Laura L. Lichter, LICHTER & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Denver, Colorado, for Petitioner. Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Lauren E. Fascett, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Melissa Ayodele Olympio, a native and citizen of Togo, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying her motion to reopen. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. ยง 1003.2(a) (2008); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 744 (4th Cir. 2006). This court will reverse the Board s denial of a motion to reopen only if the denial is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Barry, 445 F.3d at 745. Based on our review of the record, we find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. Accordingly, we deny the petition substantially on the reasoning of the Board. (B.I.A. Apr. assistance of 8, 2008). counsel We note claims are that for review See In re: Olympio Olympio s foreclosed by ineffective our recent decision in Afanwi v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 788, 796-99 (4th Cir. 2008) (holding that there is no constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment to effective assistance of counsel in removal proceedings). 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
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.