Manuel Caceres-Marroquin v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A205-025-176 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999756090].. [15-1775]

Appeal: 15-1775

Doc: 29

Filed: 02/17/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1775

MANUEL CACERES-MARROQUIN,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

January 28, 2016

Decided:

February 17, 2016

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George E. Lee, LEE IMMIGRATION LAW GROUP, Alpharetta, Georgia,
for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Kohsei Ugumori, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Aric A. Anderson, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1775

Doc: 29

Filed: 02/17/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Manuel

Caceres-Marroquin,

a

native

and

citizen

of

Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s finding that his South Carolina conviction for criminal
domestic

violence

was

categorically

a

“crime

of

domestic

violence” under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E) (2012) that rendered
him ineligible for cancellation of removal.
We

review

legal

issues

de

novo,

“affording

appropriate

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

Li Fang

Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008).
. . .

the

particular

[Board]

construes

expertise,

[however,]

entitled to deference.”
(4th Cir. 2013).

statutes
its

over

which

“Where

it

interpretations

has
are

no
not

Karimi v. Holder, 715 F.3d 561, 566

Administrative findings of fact are conclusive

unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude
to the contrary.
the

Board’s

rule.

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012).

factual

findings

under

the

We defer to

substantial

evidence

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

Upon review, we conclude that the Board properly concluded
that Caceres-Marroquin’s South Carolina conviction constituted a
crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(a) (2012) that rendered him
ineligible

for

cancellation

of
2

removal.

See

8

U.S.C.

Appeal: 15-1775

Doc: 29

Filed: 02/17/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

§ 1227(a)(E)(1); 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C) (2012).
deny

the

Board.
dispense

petition

for

review

for

the

reasons

We therefore

stated

by

See In re: Caceres-Marroquin (B.I.A. June 12, 2015).
with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

the
We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

3