Adaobi Obioha v. Loretta Lynch ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-2065
    ADAOBI STELLA OBIOHA,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals.
    Submitted:   September 14, 2015             Decided:   October 9, 2015
    Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Timothy W. Davis, LAW OFFICE OF TIMOTHY W. DAVIS, LLC,
    Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioner.       Benjamin C. Mizer,
    Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Blair T. O’Connor,
    Assistant Director, Briena L. Strippoli, Office of Immigration
    Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
    D.C., for Respondent.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Adaobi     Stella    Obioha,   a   native      and   citizen      of    Nigeria,
    petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals (Board) denying her motions to reopen.                  We have reviewed
    the administrative record and Obioha’s claims * and find no abuse
    of discretion.     See INS v. Doherty, 
    502 U.S. 314
    , 323-24 (1992)
    (setting forth standard of review).                 Accordingly, we deny the
    petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.                      See In
    re: Obioha (B.I.A. Sept. 8, 2014).              We deny Obioha’s motion to
    remand.     We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal    contentions     are   adequately     presented     in    the       materials
    before    the   court    and   argument     would   not   aid    the    decisional
    process.
    PETITION DENIED
    *  Obioha does not challenge the Board’s finding that she
    failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief under
    the Convention Against Torture, the Board’s denial of her 2013
    motion to reopen, or the Board’s refusal to sua sponte reopen
    proceedings.     She has therefore abandoned these claims on
    appeal.    See Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 
    714 F.3d 241
    , 248-49
    (4th Cir. 2013).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-2065

Judges: King, Gregory, Shedd

Filed Date: 10/9/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024