Opinion
No. 20-1602
01-07-2021
CAROLINA ROMERO ADAME, Petitioner, v. JEFFREY A. ROSEN, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
Khristina Siletskaya, SILETSKAYA IMMIGRATION LAW FIRM, Bluffton, South Carolina, for Petitioner. Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Justin Markel, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew Oliveira, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Before MOTZ, FLOYD, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Khristina Siletskaya, SILETSKAYA IMMIGRATION LAW FIRM, Bluffton, South Carolina, for Petitioner. Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Justin Markel, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew Oliveira, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Carolina Romero Adame, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge's decision denying her motion to reopen and rescind the in absentia order of removal. 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)(3) (2020); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); 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). We will reverse a denial of a motion to reopen only if it is "arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law." Mosere, 552 F.3d at 400 (internal quotation marks omitted).
After considering Romero Adame's arguments, we conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion by dismissing her appeal. 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