Case Name: Adaobi Stella OBIOHA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-09
Citations: 619 F. App'x 224
Docket Number: No. 14-2065
Parties: Adaobi Stella OBIOHA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 619
Pages: 224–225

Head Matter:
Adaobi Stella OBIOHA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-2065.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 14, 2015.
Decided: Oct. 9, 2015.
Timothy W. Davis, Law Office of Timothy W. Davis, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Blair T. O’Connor, Assistant Director, Briena L. Strippoli, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Adaobi Stella Obioha, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motions to reopen. We have reviewed the administrative record and Obioha's claims and find no abuse of discretion. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992) (setting forth standard of review). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Obioha (BIA Sept. 8, 2014). We deny Obioha's motion to remand. 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.
Obioha does not challenge the Board's finding that she failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief under the Convention Against Torture, the Board's denial of her 2013 motion to reopen, or the Board's refusal to sua sponte reopen proceedings. She has therefore abandoned these claims on appeal. See Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 714 F.3d 241, 248-49 (4th Cir.2013).