Diana Adutwumwa v. Loretta Lynch, No. 16-1091 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1091 DIANA ADUTWUMWA, a/k/a Diana Adu Twumwaa, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: January 18, 2017 Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Corey L. Farrell, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Diana Adutwumwa, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions for review (Board) of an order dismissing her of the Board of administrative Immigration appeal immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying reopening. Appeals from the We deny the petition for review. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b) (2016); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009). The “denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed with extreme deference, given that motions to reopen are disfavored because every delay works to the advantage of the deportable United States.” alien who wishes merely to remain in the Sadhvani v. Holder, 596 F.3d 180, 182 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The motion “shall state the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted and shall be supported by affidavits and other evidentiary material.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3). It “will not be granted unless the [IJ] is satisfied that evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing.” Id. We will “reverse the denial of such a motion only if the [Board] acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law.” Prasad v. Holder, 776 F.3d 222, 225 (4th Cir. 2015). 2 We have also recognized three independent grounds on which a motion to reopen removal proceedings may be denied: “(1) the alien has not established a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief sought; (2) the alien has not introduced previously unavailable, material evidence; and (3) where relief is discretionary, the alien would discretionary grant of relief.” not be entitled to the Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 234 (4th Cir. 1998) (citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988)). Because the Board “issued its own opinion without adopting the IJ’s opinion . . . we review that opinion and not the opinion of the IJ.” (4th Cir. 2014). Martinez v. Holder, 740 F.3d 902, 908 After considering Adutwumwa’s arguments and reviewing the record, we conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion dismissing her appeal from the IJ’s order denying reconsideration. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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.
