Olga Pankina; Dmitrijs Hohlovs v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 1992 . Accordingly, we deny the

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2316
OLGA PANKINA; DMITRIJS HOHLOVS,
Petitioners,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-450-025; A95-450-026)
Submitted: August 27, 2007 Decided: September 12, 2007
Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
H. Raymond Fasano, MADEO & FASANO, New York, New York, for
Petitioners. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M.
Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Jonathan Robbins, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 --

*Although the Petitioners filed their motion as a “motion for
reconsideration,” the Board properly found that the motion was in
substance a motion to reopen.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Olga Pankina, a native of the former Soviet Republic and
a stateless citizen, and her husband, Dmitrijs Hohlovs, a native
and citizen of Latvia, petition for review of an order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying their motion to reopen*
their immigration proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the
Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion
in denying the Petitioners’ motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a)
(2007); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992). Accordingly,
we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the
Board. See In Re: Pankina, Nos. A95-450-025; A95-450-026 (B.I.A.
Nov. 21, 2006). 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 of 2 --