Flores v. Gonzales , 231 F. App'x 283 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-2019
    MARIA LOURDES BARBARA       FLORES,   a/k/a   Maria
    Lourdes Barbara Fury,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    ALBERTO R. GONZALES, United States Attorney
    General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals. (A97-346-529)
    Submitted:   May 30, 2007                        Decided:   July 2, 2007
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jon Eric Garde, LAW OFFICES OF JON ERIC GARDE, Las Vegas, Nevada,
    for Appellant. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
    James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Stacey I. Young, OFFICE
    OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Maria Lourdes Barbara Flores, a native and citizen of the
    Philippines, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
    Immigration     Appeals   affirming   without     opinion   the    Immigration
    Judge’s (IJ) order denying relief from removal.                 Flores asserts
    that the IJ abused her discretion in denying Flores’ motion to
    continue for adjudication of an I-130 petition for adjustment of
    status.
    We    have   reviewed   the   record    and   find     no   abuse   of
    discretion in the IJ’s refusal to grant a continuance.                    See 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.29
     (2006); Onyeme v. INS, 
    146 F.3d 227
    , 231 (4th Cir.
    1998).    The remaining claims set forth in Flores’ brief were not
    raised before the Board of Immigration Appeals. As such, they have
    not been administratively exhausted and we lack jurisdiction to
    review them.     See 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (d)(1) (2000).           With regard to
    Flores’ ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we note that she
    has also failed to comply with the requirements of Matter of
    Lozada, 
    19 I. & N. Dec. 637
     (B.I.A. 1988).
    We accordingly deny the petition for review. 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
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-2019

Citation Numbers: 231 F. App'x 283

Judges: Niemeyer, Michael, Gregory

Filed Date: 7/2/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024