Oscar Vasquez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 920090720

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1486

OSCAR OMAR VASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted:

July 10, 2009

Decided:

July 20, 2009

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aroon R. Padharia, LAW OFFICE OF AROON R. PADHARIA, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Eric W. Marsteller, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Oscar Omar Vasquez, a lawful permanent resident and a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") denying his motion to reopen and his motion to reissue the Board's order sustaining the Government's appeal. review. This court reviews the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2009); INS v. We deny the petition for

Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009). must be reviewed do not with extreme A denial of a motion to reopen deference, reopening since the immigration applicable

statutes

contemplate

and

regulations disfavor such motions. 308 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc).

M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304,

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 8 supported C.F.R. it § by affidavits or other It that

evidentiary "shall not

material." be granted

1003.2(c)(1) to the

(2009). Board

unless

appears

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 find the Board had authority to enter an order of removal after it overturned the 2 immigration judge's order

granting cancellation of removal.

See Cruz-Camey v. Gonzales,

504 F.3d 28, 29-30 (1st Cir. 2007); Lazo v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 53, 54-55 (2d Cir. 2006). We also find Vasquez failed to show

his due process rights were violated or that he was prejudiced by the alleged error in the proceedings. See Anim v. Mukasey,

535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir. 2008); Dekoladenu v. Gonzales, 459 F.3d 500, 508 (4th Cir. 2006) ("No property or liberty interest can exist when the relief sought is discretionary."). Finally,

we find the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny the petition the for facts review. and We legal

argument

because

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

3