Jose Merino-Castro v. Loretta Lynch


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A200-232-664. Copies to all parties and the agency. [999836694]. [15-2022]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-2022 Doc: 38 Filed: 05/31/2016 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2022 JOSE LEONARDO MERINO-CASTRO, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.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 Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?