Orozco v. Gonzales , 232 F. App'x 329 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2326
TULIA MARIA OROZCO; RICARDO ANTONIO ZULUAGA;
LUIS FELIPE ZULUAGA,
Petitioners,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(A97-941-541; A97-941-542; A97-941-543)
Submitted: June 6, 2007 Decided: July 10, 2007
Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ivan Yacub, LAW OFFICE OF IVAN YACUB, Falls Church, Virginia, for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Douglas
E. Ginsburg, Senior Litigation Counsel, Ada E. Bosque, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Tulia Maria Orozco, a native and citizen of Columbia,
petitions for review the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“Board”) denying her motion to reopen. Orozco claimed reopening
was warranted because she had ineffective assistance of counsel
before the immigration judge and on appeal. We deny the petition
for review.
Our review of the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen is
extremely deferential, since immigration statutes do not
contemplate reopening and the applicable regulations disfavor
motions to reopen. M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 1990)
(en banc); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c) (2006) (stating a “motion to reopen proceedings 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.”). The
decision will not be reversed absent abuse of discretion.
Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999).
We find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s finding
that Orozco failed to show she was prejudiced by counsel’s conduct.
We also find no due process violation. As a result, we deny the
petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
- 2 -
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -