Serafin Zurita-Espinoza, a/k/a Zurita Serafin Espinoza v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

13-1817Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit4 de abr. de 2014

Abrir fonte

Texto completo

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1817
SERAFIN ZURITA-ESPINOZA, a/k/a Zurita Serafin Espinoza,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 19, 2014 Decided: April 4, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
General, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Liza S. Murcia,
Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Serafin Zurita-Espinoza, a native and citizen of
Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal of the
Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying his motion to reopen
as untimely. We have reviewed the administrative record and
find no abuse of discretion in the denial of relief on
Zurita-Espinoza’s motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) (2013).
We therefore deny the petition for review in part for the
reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Zurita-Espinoza,
(B.I.A. May 31, 2013). We further find that we lack
jurisdiction to review Zurita-Espinoza’s claim that the Board
erred in upholding the IJ’s refusal to invoke the immigration
court’s sua sponte power to reopen his proceedings. See
Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part 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 IN PART
AND DISMISSED IN PART

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.