Jorge Galean-Prudente v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to participate in oral argument [999527991-2]. Originating case number: A200-578-416 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999604746].. [14-1663, 14-2343]

Appeal: 14-1663

Doc: 40

Filed: 06/18/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1663

JORGE MARIO
Prudente,

GALEAN-PRUDENTE,

a/k/a

Jorge

Mario

Galeana

Jorge

Mario

Galeana

Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

No. 14-2343

JORGE MARIO
Prudente,

GALEAN-PRUDENTE,

a/k/a

Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

June 1, 2015

Before KING and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

June 18, 2015

DAVIS,

Senior

Appeal: 14-1663

Doc: 40

Filed: 06/18/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

Petitions denied in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.

Buxton Reed Bailey, BUXTON R. BAILEY, P.C., Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Claire L. Workman, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Rachel Browning, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-1663

Doc: 40

Filed: 06/18/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Jorge Mario Galean-Prudente,
a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his
appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his application
for cancellation of removal (No. 14-1663) and for review of the
Board’s order denying his motion to reconsider (No. 14-2343).
We

review

legal

issues

de

novo,

“affording

appropriate

deference to the [Board]’s interpretation of the [Immigration
and Nationality Act] and any attendant regulations.”
Lin

v.

Mukasey,

Administrative

517

F.3d

findings

of

685,
fact

691-92
are

(4th

Li Fang

Cir.

conclusive

2008).

unless

any

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary.
Board’s
rule.

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012).
factual

findings

under

the

We defer to the

substantial

evidence

Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 252 (4th Cir. 2008).

Upon review, we find that the agency properly concluded
that Galean-Prudente knowingly engaged in alien smuggling under
8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E) (2012), which statutorily precluded him
from establishing the requisite good moral character necessary
for

cancellation

of

removal.

See

8

U.S.C.

§

1101(f)(3)

(2012); Ramos v. Holder, 660 F.3d 200, 203-06 (4th Cir. 2011).
We further conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion
in denying Galean-Prudente’s motion to reconsider the denial of
3

Appeal: 14-1663

Doc: 40

Filed: 06/18/2015

Pg: 4 of 4

his application for cancellation of removal.

We therefore deny

the petitions for review in part for the reasons stated by the
Board.

See In re: Galean-Prudente (B.I.A. June 26 & Nov. 12,

2014).
We lack jurisdiction * to review Galean-Prudente’s challenges
to

the

Board’s

refusal

to

reinstate

his

grant

of

voluntary

departure, and therefore dismiss the petitions for review in
part.

See

8

U.S.C.

§

1229c(f)

(2012);

8

U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (2012); Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182,
193 (4th Cir. 2004).

In any event, the issue is now moot.

Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(i) (2014), a grant of voluntary
departure automatically terminates upon the filing of a petition
for review.
We dispense with oral argument and deny Galean-Prudente’s
motion to participate in oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
PETITIONS DENIED IN PART,
DISMISSED IN PART

*

Galean-Prudente does not raise any questions of law or
constitutional issues that would fall within the exception set
forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012).

4