Erdenesuren Dagamjav v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A098-575-859 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999751627].. [15-1516]

Appeal: 15-1516

Doc: 31

Filed: 02/09/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1516

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

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

Submitted:

December 17, 2015

Decided:

February 9, 2016

Before GREGORY, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John L. Wheaton, JOHN L. WHEATON, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PLLC,
Seattle, Washington, for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer,
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Song Park, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Timothy G. Hayes, Office of Immigration
Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1516

Doc: 31

Filed: 02/09/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Erdenesuren

Dagamjav,

a

native

and

citizen

of

Mongolia,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals dismissing Dagamjav’s appeal of the immigration judge’s
denial of his motion to reopen through which Dagamjav sought
rescission of a previously entered in absentia order of removal.
We have reviewed the administrative record and find no abuse of
discretion in the denial of relief on Dagamjav’s motion.
C.F.R.

§ 1003.23(b)(4)(ii)

(2015).

Substantial

See 8

evidence

supports the immigration judge’s factual determination, affirmed
by the Board, that Dagamjav’s prior attorney did not provide
ineffective assistance of counsel, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)
(2012) (“[A]dministrative findings of fact are conclusive unless
any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary.”),
motion

to

such

that

reopen

the

would

§ 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i)

180-day

be

(2012)

period

equitably

(setting

for

tolled,

forth

time

filing
see

such

8

a

U.S.C.

limitation

for

filing a motion to reopen to seek rescission of an in absentia
order of removal).
Accordingly,
reasons
Mar. 20,
facts

stated
2015).

and

legal

we

by

deny

the
We

the

petition

Board.

dispense

contentions

See
with

are

2

In
oral

for
re:

review
Dagamjav

argument

adequately

for

(B.I.A.

because

presented

the

in

the
the

Appeal: 15-1516

Doc: 31

materials

before

Filed: 02/09/2016

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

3