Diana Adutwumwa v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A098-481-021 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000005336].. [16-1091]

Appeal: 16-1091

Doc: 31

Filed: 01/18/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1091

DIANA ADUTWUMWA, a/k/a Diana Adu Twumwaa,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted:

December 15, 2016

Decided:

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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
Assistant
Attorney
General,
Terri
J.
Scadron,
Assistant
Director, Corey L. Farrell, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1091

Doc: 31

Filed: 01/18/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Diana Adutwumwa, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions
for

review

(Board)

of

an

order

dismissing

her

of

the

Board

of

administrative

Immigration
appeal

immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying reopening.

Appeals

from

the

We deny the

petition for review.
We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of
discretion.

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
of

the

deportable

United States.”

alien

who

wishes

merely

to

remain

in

the

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).

It

“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.”
Id.

We

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).

2

Appeal: 16-1091

Doc: 31

Filed: 01/18/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

We have also recognized three independent grounds on which
a motion to reopen removal proceedings may be denied:

“(1) the

alien has not established a prima facie case for the underlying
substantive

relief

sought;

(2)

the

alien

has

not

introduced

previously unavailable, material evidence; and (3) where relief
is

discretionary,

the

alien

would

discretionary grant of relief.”

not

be

entitled

to

the

Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227,

234 (4th Cir. 1998) (citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05
(1988)).

Because

the

Board

“issued

its

own

opinion

without

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
reconsideration.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

3