Orozco v. Gonzales, No. 06-2326 (4th Cir. 2007)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2326 TULIA MARIA OROZCO; RICARDO ANTONIO ZULUAGA; LUIS FELIPE ZULUAGA, Petitioners, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (A97-941-541; A97-941-542; A97-941-543) Submitted: June 6, 2007 Decided: July 10, 2007 Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ivan Yacub, LAW OFFICE OF IVAN YACUB, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Senior Litigation Counsel, Ada E. Bosque, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tulia Maria Orozco, a native and citizen of Columbia, petitions for review the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) denying her motion to reopen. Orozco claimed reopening was warranted because she had ineffective assistance of counsel before the immigration judge and on appeal. We deny the petition for review. Our review of the Board s denial of a motion to reopen is extremely deferential, contemplate reopening motions to reopen. since and the immigration applicable statutes regulations do not disfavor M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) (2006) (stating a motion to reopen proceedings shall not be granted unless it appears to the Board that evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available and could not have been discovered decision will or not presented be at reversed the former absent hearing. ). abuse of The discretion. Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999). We find no abuse of discretion in the Board s finding that Orozco failed to show she was prejudiced by counsel s conduct. We also find no due process violation. petition for review. facts and legal As a result, we deny the We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are - 2 - adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED - 3 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.