Flores v. Mukasey

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 26, 2009
Docket08-1017
StatusUnpublished

This text of Flores v. Mukasey (Flores v. Mukasey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Flores v. Mukasey, (4th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1017

MARIA LOURDES BARBARA FLORES, a/k/a Maria Lourdes Barbara Fury,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 08-1622

MARIA LOURDES BARBARA FLORES, a/k/a Maria Lourdes Barbara Fury,

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: January 7, 2009 Decided: January 26, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petitions denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 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 consolidated

petitions for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(2) (2006); Stone

v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Stone v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
514 U.S. 386 (Supreme Court, 1995)
Afanwi v. Mukasey
526 F.3d 788 (Fourth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Flores v. Mukasey, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flores-v-mukasey-ca4-2009.