Smart v. Mukasey, No. 06-1468 (4th Cir. 2007)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1468 HYANG KYU SMART, Petitioner, versus MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A29-797-377) Submitted: November 19, 2007 Decided: December 19, 2007 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and Henry F. FLOYD, United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina, sitting by designation. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Bodner, Jr., Pradeep Victor, HOWREY, L.L.P., Washington, D.C.; Stanton Braverman, BRAVERMAN & LIN, P.C., Charlottesville, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Song E. Park, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Hyang Kyu Smart, a native and citizen of South Korea, seeks review of the April 4, 2006 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reconsider. Smart, No. A29-797-377 (B.I.A. Apr. 4, 2006). See In re: In her brief, Smart reiterates arguments relevant to the Board s underlying order of January 26, 2006, finding no jurisdiction application for adjustment of status. 797-377 (B.I.A. Jan. 26, 2006). to consider her See In re: Smart, No. A29- We note that the underlying order is not before us for review and that Smart does not advance any arguments relevant to the denial of the motion to reconsider. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 394, 405 (1995). Accordingly, we are constrained to 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 -

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.