Case Name: Sara Aragaw LAKEW, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent; Sara Aragaw Lakew, Petitioner, v. Peter D. Keisler, Acting Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-10
Citations: 250 F. App'x 539
Docket Number: Nos. 07-1069, 07-1331
Parties: Sara Aragaw LAKEW, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. Sara Aragaw Lakew, Petitioner, v. Peter D. Keisler, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 250
Pages: 539–539

Head Matter:
Sara Aragaw LAKEW, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. Sara Aragaw Lakew, Petitioner, v. Peter D. Keisler, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
Nos. 07-1069, 07-1331.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 19, 2007.
Decided: Oct. 10, 2007.
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.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petitions denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
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, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (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. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ] (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.