Iana Rata v. Loretta Lynch


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A205-105-221,A205-105-222 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000008938].. [16-1292]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-1292 Doc: 26 Filed: 01/24/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1292 IANA RATA; ARA ARARAT TIRATSVYAN, Petitioners, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: December 16, 2016 Decided: January 24, 2017 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Maryland, for Petitioners. Benjamin C. Mizer, Assistant Attorney General, Nancy Friedman, Senior Counsel, Margaret A. O’Donnell, Office of Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, D.C., for Respondent. Rockville, Principal Litigation Immigration Washington, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-1292 Doc: 26 Filed: 01/24/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Iana Rata, a native and citizen of Moldova, and her husband, derivative beneficiary Ara A. Tiratsvyan, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying Rata’s barred. motion to reopen as untimely and numerically We have reviewed the administrative record and Rata’s claims, and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Mosere v. her motion. Mukasey, 552 See F.3d 8 397, C.F.R. 400 § 1003.2(a) (4th Cir. (2016); 2009). We accordingly deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. dispense with contentions are See In re Rata (B.I.A. Feb. 22, 2016). oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 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?