UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-2108
GJERGJ PLLUMAJ, a/k/a George Plumaj; FILE PLLUMAJ, a/k/a
File Plumaj,
Petitioners,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 7, 2017 Decided: March 16, 2017
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Paul DiRaimondo, DIRAIMONDO & MASI, LLP, Melville, New
York, for Petitioners. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant
Director, Thankful T. Vanderstar, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Gjergj and File Pllumaj, natives and citizens of Albania,
petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) denying their third motion to reopen. We deny
the petition for review.
We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of
discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(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 alien who wishes merely to remain in the
United States.” 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 or
other evidentiary material.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (2016).
It “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 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).
We have reviewed the record and considered the Petitioners’
arguments and conclude that the Board did not abuse its
2
discretion in denying reopening. 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