Ewart Vandecruize v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 920091020

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1341

EWART ULRIC VANDECRUIZE, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-1849

EWART ULRIC VANDECRUIZE, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-1303

EWART ULRIC VANDECRUIZE, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted:

December 17, 2008

Decided:

October 20, 2009

Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Nos. 07-1341 and 07-1849 petitions denied; No. 08-1303 petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rachel S. Ullman, YANG & ULLMAN, P.C., Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant Director, Don G. Scroggin, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM: In Vandecruize, review Appeals of a these native consolidated and citizen orders of petitions, of the Guyana, Board Ewart Ulric for

petitions of

three

separate (1)

Immigration from as the an

("Board"): judge's

dismissing finding

his him

appeal

immigration

decision

inadmissible

alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled and as an alien who falsely represented himself to be a citizen of the United States for a purpose or benefit under the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), and finding him

ineligible for adjustment of status; (2) denying his motion to reconsider; and (3) denying his motion for sua sponte

reconsideration. Based on our review of the record and the Board's

order of April 9, 2007, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding that Vandecruize failed to meet his burden of proving that he was not inadmissible under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) (2006) as an alien who falsely represented himself to be a citizen of the United States for a purpose or benefit under the INA. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(b) (2009). We

have also reviewed the Board's order of July 31, 2007, and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying

Vandecruize's motion to reconsider. (2009).

See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a)

Accordingly, we deny the petitions for review in Case 3

Nos. 07-1341 and 07-1849 for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Vandecruize (B.I.A. Apr. 9 & Jul. 31, 2007). In Case No. 08-1303, Vandecruize challenges the

Board's denial of his motion for sua sponte reconsideration. Because we lack jurisdiction to review the Board's refusal to exercise its sua sponte authority to reconsider, we dismiss the petition for review in No. 08-1303. See Mosere v. Mukasey, 552

F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, __ S. Ct. __ (U.S. Oct. 5, 2009) (No. 08-10795). 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. Nos. 07-1341 and 07-1849 PETITIONS DENIED No. 08-1303 PETITION DISMISSED

4