Flores v. Mukasey
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.
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UNPUBLISHED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 Petitions denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Flores v. Mukasey, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flores-v-mukasey-ca4-2009.