Case Name: Maria Lourdes Barbara FLORES, a/k/a Maria Lourdes Barbara Fury, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent; Maria Lourdes Barbara Flores, a/k/a Maria Lourdes Barbara Fury, Petitioner, v. Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-26
Citations: 309 F. App'x 697
Docket Number: Nos. 08-1017, 08-1622
Parties: Maria Lourdes Barbara FLORES, a/k/a Maria Lourdes Barbara Fury, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. Maria Lourdes Barbara Flores, a/k/a Maria Lourdes Barbara Fury, Petitioner, v. Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 309
Pages: 697–698

Head Matter:
Maria Lourdes Barbara FLORES, a/k/a Maria Lourdes Barbara Fury, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. Maria Lourdes Barbara Flores, a/k/a Maria Lourdes Barbara Fury, Petitioner, v. Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General, Respondent.
Nos. 08-1017, 08-1622.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 7, 2009.
Decided: Jan. 26, 2009.
Jeremiah Johnson, Reeves & Associates, APLC, San Francisco, California, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Michelle Gorden Latour, Assistant Director, Joseph A. O’Connell, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petitions denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Maria Lourdes Barbara Flores, a native and citizen of the Philippines, seeks review of orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motions to reopen. We have reviewed Flores' arguments and find no abuse of discretion in the Board's decisions denying her motions to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2008); Afanwi v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 788 (4th Cir.2008). To the extent Flores challenges the underlying decision of the Immigration Judge that was previously affirmed by the Board, those orders have already been reviewed by this court and are otherwise not part of the instant con solidated petitions for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(2) (2006); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995).
Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part the petitions 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.
PETITIONS DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.