Amadu Koroma v. Merrick Garland, No. 22-1225 (4th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-1225 AMADU MOHAMED KOROMA, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: November 18, 2022 Decided: December 6, 2022 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Buxton Reed Bailey, BUXTON R. BAILEY, P.C., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Zoe Heller, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jonathan Robbins, Assistant Director, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Amadu Mohamed Koroma, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying Koroma’s motion for reconsideration of the Board’s prior order dismissing Koroma’s appeal of the immigration judge’s decision pretermitting his application for cancellation of removal and ordering Koroma removed to Sierra Leone. Upon review of the record, we discern no abuse of discretion in the Board’s rationale for denying the underlying motion for reconsideration. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2022); Mejia-Velasquez v. Garland, 26 F.4th 193, 205 (4th Cir. 2022) (providing standard of review and explaining that the Board abuses its discretion only if it “acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Koroma (B.I.A. Feb. 25, 2022). 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

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.