Diana Adutwumwa v. Loretta Lynch
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A098-481-021 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-1091]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
DIANA ADUTWUMWA, a/k/a Diana Adu Twumwaa,
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
December 15, 2016
January 18, 2017
Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Director, Corey L. Farrell, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Diana Adutwumwa, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions
immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying reopening.
We deny the
petition for review.
We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of
8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b) (2016); Mosere v. Mukasey,
552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009).
The “denial of a motion to
reopen is reviewed with extreme deference, given that motions to
reopen are disfavored because every delay works to the advantage
Sadhvani v. Holder, 596 F.3d 180, 182 (4th Cir.
2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The motion “shall
state the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held
if the motion is granted and shall be supported by affidavits
and other evidentiary material.”
8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3).
“will not be granted unless the [IJ] is satisfied that evidence
sought to be offered is material and was not available and could
not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing.”
will “reverse the denial of such a motion only if the
[Board] acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law.”
Prasad v. Holder, 776 F.3d 222, 225 (4th Cir. 2015).
Pg: 3 of 3
We have also recognized three independent grounds on which
a motion to reopen removal proceedings may be denied:
alien has not established a prima facie case for the underlying
previously unavailable, material evidence; and (3) where relief
discretionary grant of relief.”
Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227,
234 (4th Cir. 1998) (citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05
adopting the IJ’s opinion . . . we review that opinion and not
the opinion of the IJ.”
(4th Cir. 2014).
Martinez v. Holder, 740 F.3d 902, 908
After considering Adutwumwa’s arguments and
reviewing the record, we conclude that the Board did not abuse
its discretion dismissing her appeal from the IJ’s order denying
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?