Case ID: f-appx_158/html/0423-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Misrak Hallemariam GEBREHIWOT, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-1115.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 17, 2005.
    Decided Dec. 13, 2005.
    Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Sara Bugbee Winn, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Respondent.
    Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Misrak Hailemariam Gebrehiwot, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen immigration proceedings. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992); Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir.1999). The denial of a motion to reopen must be reviewed with extreme deference, since immigration statutes do not contemplate reopening and the applicable regulations disfavor motions to reopen. M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir.1990) (en banc).

A motion to reopen “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 or other evidentiary material.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (2004). “A motion to reopen proceedings shall not be granted unless it appears to the Board 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 have reviewed the record, the immigration judge’s decision, and the Board’s orders and find no abuse of discretion.

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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED