Orozco v. Gonzales

Filing 920070710

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2326 TULIA MARIA OROZCO; RICARDO ANTONIO ZULUAGA; LUIS FELIPE ZULUAGA, Petitioners, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (A97-941-541; A97-941-542; A97-941-543) Submitted: June 6, 2007 Decided: July 10, 2007 Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ivan Yacub, LAW OFFICE OF IVAN YACUB, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Senior Litigation Counsel, Ada E. Bosque, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Tulia Maria Orozco, a native and citizen of Columbia, petitions for review the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") denying her motion to reopen. Orozco claimed reopening was warranted because she had ineffective assistance of counsel before the immigration judge and on appeal. for review. Our review of the Board's denial of a motion to reopen is extremely contemplate deferential, reopening since the immigration applicable statutes do not We deny the petition and regulations disfavor motions to reopen. M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992); 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c) (2006) (stating a "motion to reopen proceedings shall not be granted unless it appears to the Board that evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available and could not have been discovered will or not presented be at the former hearing."). of The decision reversed absent abuse discretion. Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999). We find no abuse of discretion in the Board's finding that Orozco failed to show she was prejudiced by counsel's conduct. We also find no due process violation. petition for review. facts and legal As a result, we deny the We dispense with oral argument because the are adequately presented in the contentions - 2 - materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED - 3 -

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?