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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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?