Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-01996/USCOURTS-ca4-19-01996-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William P. Barr
Respondent
Claire Ngo Sohna
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1996

CLAIRE NGO SOHNA,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: February 24, 2020 Decided: March 27, 2020

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Linda A. Dominguez, L A DOMINGUEZ LAW, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Anthony C. Payne, Assistant 

Director, Joseph D. Hardy, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1996 Doc: 26 Filed: 03/27/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Claire Ngo Sohna, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the 

immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen. We deny the petition.

We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.23(b)(3) (2019); 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). 

In order to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel that warrants reopening, 

Sohna must show that she was prejudiced by counsel’s conduct. See In re Lozada, 19 I. & 

N. Dec. 637, 640 (B.I.A. 1988). Upon our review of the Board’s order and the record, we 

find nothing that undermines the Board’s findings that Sohna did not demonstrate prejudice 

or that she diligently pursued her rights. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1996 Doc: 26 Filed: 03/27/2020 Pg: 2 of 2