Jose Merino-Castro v. Loretta Lynch
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A200-232-664. Copies to all parties and the agency. . [15-2022]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LEONARDO MERINO-CASTRO,
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
May 3, 2016
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Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Imran R.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
Jose Leonardo Merino-Castro, a native and citizen of El
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,
Merino-Castro filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the IJ’s
adverse credibility finding.
The Board denied reconsideration,
credibility finding, but affirmed the IJ’s decision that MerinoCastro did not meet his burden of proof.
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.
fidelity to [its] terms.”
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
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.
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2015); Urbina v.
The movant must specify the error of fact or
law in the Board’s prior decision.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1)
irrationally, or contrary to law.”
Urbina, 745 F.3d at 741
(internal quotation marks omitted).
reconsideration was a challenge to the Board’s consideration of
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
parts of the record on which the appellant relies.”
App. P. 28(a)(8)(A).
Furthermore, the “[f]ailure to comply with
the specific dictates of [Rule 28] with respect to a particular
Pg: 4 of 4
claim triggers abandonment of that claim on appeal.”
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).
administrative remedies by raising these issues in his motion
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)).
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?