U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1999

Aldana-Archila v. Reno

Aldana-Archila v. Reno
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided September 30, 1999

Aldana-Archila v. Reno

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-1430

FELIX ORLANDO ALDANA-ARCHILA, Petitioner, versus

JANET RENO, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A-72-349-427)

Submitted: September 8, 1999 Decided: September 30, 1999

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN,* Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul S. Allen, Pauline M. Schwartz, PAUL SHEARMAN ALLEN & ASSO- CIATES, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Ellen Sue Shapiro, Senior Litigation Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

* Judge Ervin was assigned to the panel in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 46(d).

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant Felix Orlando Aldana-Archila seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (“Board”) decision and order affirm- ing the immigration judge's denial of his application for waiver of deportation. On petition for review, Aldana-Archila argues that the immigration judge improperly admitted Form I-213 and Aldana- Archila’s statements to INS officers to prove alienage. Our review of the record discloses that the Board properly affirmed the immigration judge’s decision and that this appeal is without merit.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. See In re: Felix Orlando Aldana-Archila, No. A-72-349-427 (B.I.A. Mar. 4, 1999). 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.

AFFIRMED

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.