Diana Adutwumwa v. Loretta Lynch , 673 F. App'x 318 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1091
DIANA ADUTWUMWA, a/k/a Diana Adu Twumwaa,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: January 18, 2017
Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant
Director, Corey L. Farrell, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Diana Adutwumwa, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(Board) dismissing her administrative appeal from the
immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying reopening. We deny the
petition for review.
We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of
discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(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 alien who wishes merely to remain in the
United States.” 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
and other evidentiary material.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3). It
“will not be granted unless the [IJ] is satisfied 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).
2
We have also recognized three independent grounds on which
a motion to reopen removal proceedings may be denied: “(1) the
alien has not established a prima facie case for the underlying
substantive relief sought; (2) the alien has not introduced
previously unavailable, material evidence; and (3) where relief
is discretionary, the alien would not be entitled to the
discretionary grant of relief.” Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227,
234 (4th Cir. 1998) (citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05
(1988)). Because the Board “issued its own opinion without
adopting the IJ’s opinion . . . we review that opinion and not
the opinion of the IJ.” Martinez v. Holder, 740 F.3d 902, 908
(4th Cir. 2014). After considering Adutwumwa’s arguments and
reviewing the record, we conclude that the Board did not abuse
its discretion dismissing her appeal from the IJ’s order denying
reconsideration.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3