Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
14-2065•Adaobi Stella Obioha v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General
14-2065Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit09.10.2015
UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
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 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.