Pankina & Hohlovs v. Gonzales

Filing 920070912


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2316 OLGA PANKINA; DMITRIJS HOHLOVS, Petitioners, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A95-450-025; A95-450-026) Submitted: August 27, 2007 Decided: September 12, 2007 Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. H. Raymond Fasano, MADEO & FASANO, New York, New York, for Petitioners. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Jonathan Robbins, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Olga Pankina, a native of the former Soviet Republic and a stateless citizen, and her husband, Dmitrijs Hohlovs, a native and citizen of Latvia, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") denying their motion to reopen* their immigration proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the Board's order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the Petitioners' motion. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(a) Accordingly, (2007); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992). we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In Re: Pankina, Nos. A95-450-025; A95-450-026 (B.I.A. We dispense with oral argument because the facts Nov. 21, 2006). and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED Although the Petitioners filed their motion as a "motion for reconsideration," the Board properly found that the motion was in substance a motion to reopen. - 2 - *

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?