Bastos v. Gonzales
Summary of the case Bastos v. Gonzales
Ulisses M. Bastos, a Brazilian citizen, petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying his motion to reopen and remand to apply for asylum based on changed circumstances. The court reviewed the administrative record and the Board's order, finding no abuse of discretion, and denied the petition.
Key Issues of the case Bastos v. Gonzales
- Denial of motion to reopen and remand
- Application for asylum based on changed circumstances
Key Facts of the case Bastos v. Gonzales
- Ulisses M. Bastos is a native and citizen of Brazil.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals denied Bastos's motion to reopen and remand.
Decision of the case Bastos v. Gonzales
Petition denied
Opinions
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1542
ULISSES M. BASTOS,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A28-326-230)
Submitted: January 25, 2006 Decided: February 13, 2006
Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antonio M. Zaldana, LAW OFFICE OF ANTONIO M. ZALDANA, Los Angeles, California, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey J. Bernstein, Senior Litigation Counsel, John E. Cunningham, III, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
Ulisses M. Bastos, a native and citizen of Brazil,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen and remand to the
immigration judge to apply for asylum based upon changed
circumstances. We have reviewed the administrative record and the
Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion.
See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992). Accordingly, we
deny the petition for review. 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 -