The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
07-1069•Sara Aragaw Lakew v. PETER D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General
07-1069Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 10, 2007
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1069
SARA ARAGAW LAKEW,
Petitioner,
versus
PETER D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-1331
SARA ARAGAW LAKEW,
Petitioner,
versus
PETER D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A76-949-751)
Submitted: September 19, 2007 Decided: October 10, 2007
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
-- 1 of 3 --
- 2 -
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sara Aragaw Lakew, Petitioner Pro Se. Carol Federighi, Andrew B.
Insenga, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated petitions for review, Sara Aragaw
Lakew, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of
two separate orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”).
In No. 07-1069, she challenges the Board’s denial of her motion to
reopen removal proceedings. In No. 07-1331, she challenges the
Board’s denial of a motion to reconsider the denial of her motion
to reopen.
We have reviewed the record and the Board’s orders and
find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying either
Lakew’s motion to reopen or her motion to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(a) (2007); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992)
(standard of review of denial of motion to reopen); Jean v.
Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 481, 482-83 (4th Cir. 2006) (standard of
review of denial of motion to reconsider). We therefore deny both
petitions for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In
Re: Lakew, No. A76-949-751 (B.I.A. Dec. 29, 2006 & Mar. 21, 2007).
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.
PETITIONS DENIED
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.