Opinion
22-1225
12-06-2022
AMADU MOHAMED KOROMA, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
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UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: November 18, 2022
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
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.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.