Jose Merino-Castro v. Loretta Lynch
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A200-232-664. Copies to all parties and the agency. [999836694]. [15-2022]
Appeal: 15-2022
Doc: 38
Filed: 05/31/2016
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2022
JOSE LEONARDO MERINO-CASTRO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted:
May 3, 2016
Decided:
May 31, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anna Aita, LAW OFFICES OF ANNA AITA, Glen Burnie, Maryland, for
Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Imran R.
Zaidi,
Office
of
Immigration
Litigation,
UNITED
STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-2022
Doc: 38
Filed: 05/31/2016
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Jose Leonardo Merino-Castro, a native and citizen of El
Salvador,
petitions
Immigration
for
Appeals
reconsideration.
review
of
(Board)
an
order
denying
of
the
his
Board
motion
of
for
We dismiss the petition for review.
On June 9, 2015, the Board dismissed Merino-Castro’s appeal
from the immigration judge’s (IJ) order finding him removable
and denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal,
and
protection
under
the
Convention
Against
Torture
(CAT).
Merino-Castro filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the IJ’s
adverse credibility finding.
noting
that
it
did
not
The Board denied reconsideration,
find
that
the
IJ
made
an
adverse
credibility finding, but affirmed the IJ’s decision that MerinoCastro did not meet his burden of proof.
Only
the
Board’s
denial
of
Merino-Castro’s
motion
for
reconsideration is properly before this court as he failed to
timely petition for review of the Board’s June 9, 2015 decision
dismissing his appeal.
Merino-Castro had 30 days from the date
of this initial decision to timely file a petition for review.
See
8
U.S.C.
“jurisdictional
§
in
1252(b)(1)
nature
fidelity to [its] terms.”
(1995).
(2012).
and
must
This
be
time
construed
period
with
is
strict
Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405
The filing of a motion to reopen or reconsider with the
Board does not toll the 30-day period for seeking review of an
2
Appeal: 15-2022
Doc: 38
Filed: 05/31/2016
underlying decision.
Pg: 3 of 4
Id. at 394.
Accordingly, our review is
limited to the propriety of the Board’s August 31, 2015 denial
of Merino-Castro’s motion for reconsideration.
The denial of a motion for reconsideration is reviewed for
abuse of discretion.
Holder,
745
F.3d
reconsideration
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2015); Urbina v.
736,
asserts
earlier decision.
741
(4th
Cir.
2014).
the
Board
made
that
We
will
reconsideration
an
motion
error
in
for
its
The movant must specify the error of fact or
law in the Board’s prior decision.
(2015).
A
reverse
“only
if
a
the
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1)
denial
of
Board
acted
irrationally, or contrary to law.”
a
motion
for
arbitrarily,
Urbina, 745 F.3d at 741
(internal quotation marks omitted).
The
only
issue
Merino-Castro
raised
in
his
motion
for
reconsideration was a challenge to the Board’s consideration of
the
IJ’s
adverse
credibility
finding.
Because
Merino-Castro
does not challenge the Board’s resolution of that issue in his
brief, review of that issue is waived.
Under Rule 28 of the
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, “the argument [section of
the brief] . . . must contain . . . appellant’s contentions and
the
reasons
for
them,
with
citations
to
the
authorities
parts of the record on which the appellant relies.”
App. P. 28(a)(8)(A).
and
Fed. R.
Furthermore, the “[f]ailure to comply with
the specific dictates of [Rule 28] with respect to a particular
3
Appeal: 15-2022
Doc: 38
Filed: 05/31/2016
Pg: 4 of 4
claim triggers abandonment of that claim on appeal.”
Edwards v.
City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999); see
also Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004)
(failure to challenge the denial of relief under the CAT results
in abandonment of that challenge).
We
raises
lack
in
jurisdiction
his
brief
to
review
because
he
the
issues
failed
Merino-Castro
to
exhaust
his
administrative remedies by raising these issues in his motion
for reconsideration.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012) (“A court
may review a final order of removal only if . . . the alien has
exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as
of right.”); Kporlor v. Holder, 597 F.3d 222, 226 (4th Cir.
2010) (“It is well established that an alien must raise each
argument to the [Board] before we have jurisdiction to consider
it.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Accordingly,
dispense
with
contentions
are
we
oral
dismiss
argument
adequately
the
petition
because
presented
in
the
the
for
review.
facts
We
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?