Gjergj Pllumaj v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A078-148-474,A078-148-470. Copies to all parties and the agency. [1000043431]. [16-2108]

Appeal: 16-2108

Doc: 21

Filed: 03/16/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2108

GJERGJ PLLUMAJ, a/k/a George Plumaj; FILE PLLUMAJ, a/k/a
File Plumaj,
Petitioners,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

March 7, 2017

Decided:

March 16, 2017

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Paul DiRaimondo, DIRAIMONDO & MASI, LLP, Melville, New
York, for Petitioners.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant
Attorney
General,
Linda
S.
Wernery,
Assistant
Director,
Thankful
T.
Vanderstar,
Office
of
Immigration
Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-2108

Doc: 21

Filed: 03/16/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Gjergj and File Pllumaj, natives and citizens of Albania,
petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) denying their third motion to reopen.

We deny

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

8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(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 or
other evidentiary material.”

8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (2016).

It “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 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).

We have reviewed the record and considered the Petitioners’
arguments

and

conclude

that

the
2

Board

did

not

abuse

its

Appeal: 16-2108

Doc: 21

discretion

in

Filed: 03/16/2017

denying

petition for review.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

Pg: 3 of 3

reopening.

Accordingly,

we

deny

the

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

3