Ruben Gonzalez-Machuca v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A205-947-506. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999926813]. [15-2575]

Appeal: 15-2575

Doc: 31

Filed: 09/12/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2575

RUBEN GONZALEZ-MACHUCA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

August 25, 2016

Decided:

September 12, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, John W. Blakeley, Assistant Director,
W. Daniel Shieh, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2575

Doc: 31

Filed: 09/12/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Ruben

Gonzalez-Machuca,

a

native

and

citizen

of

Mexico,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s
(IJ)

order

finding

that

cancellation of removal.

he

abandoned

his

application

for

After thoroughly reviewing the record

and considering Gonzalez-Machuca’s arguments, we conclude that the
Board did not abuse its discretion by agreeing with the IJ that
Gonzalez-Machuca abandoned his application for cancellation of
removal.

See Yanez-Marquez v. Lynch, 789 F.3d 434, 444 (4th Cir.

2015) (applying an abuse of discretion standard to review of BIA
decisions); Moreta v. Holder, 723 F.3d 31, 34 (1st Cir. 2013)
(stating standard of review).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons
stated by the Board.
2015).

See In re Gonzalez-Machuca, (B.I.A. Nov. 27,

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

2