Ever Josue Cruz-Guillen v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying petition for review [999901072-2]. Originating case number: A206-503-393. Copies to all parties and the agency. [1000018503]. [16-1867]

Appeal: 16-1867

Doc: 20

Filed: 02/07/2017

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1867

EVER JOSUE CRUZ-GUILLEN,
Petitioner,
v.
DANA JAMES BOENTE, Acting Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

January 19, 2017

Decided:

February 7, 2017

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew W. Clopman, ANDREW W. CLOPMAN, P.A., Stuart, Florida, for
Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Matthew
A. Connelly, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1867

Doc: 20

Filed: 02/07/2017

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Ever Josue Cruz-Guillen, a native and citizen of Honduras,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reconsider and reopen.
For

the

reasons

set

forth

below,

we

deny

the

petition

for

review.
The denial of a motion to reconsider is reviewed for abuse
of discretion.

8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2016); Urbina v. Holder,

745 F.3d 736, 741 (4th Cir. 2014); Narine v. Holder, 559 F.3d
246, 249 (4th Cir. 2009).

A motion to reconsider asserts that

the Board made an error in its earlier decision.

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) (2016).

We will reverse

the denial of a motion to reconsider “only if the Board acted
arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law.”

Narine, 559

F.3d at 249 (internal quotation marks omitted).
We also review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse
of discretion.

8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S.

314, 323-24 (1992); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th
Cir.

2009).

The

Board’s

“denial

of

a

motion

to

reopen

is

reviewed with extreme deference, given that motions to reopen
are disfavored because every delay works to the advantage of the
deportable
States.”

alien

who

wishes

merely

to

remain

in

the

United

Sadhvani v. Holder, 596 F.3d 180, 182 (4th Cir. 2009)
2

Appeal: 16-1867

Doc: 20

Filed: 02/07/2017

Pg: 3 of 4

(internal quotation marks omitted).

The motion “shall state the

new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the
motion is granted and shall be supported by affidavits or other
evidentiary

material.”

“shall

be

not

8 C.F.R.

granted

unless

it

§ 1003.2(c)(1)
appears

to

(2016).

the

Board

It
that

evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available
and could not have been discovered or presented at the former
hearing.”

Id.

“[A]dministrative

findings

of

fact

are

conclusive

unless

any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary.”
reviewed

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012).
de

novo,

[Board’s]’s

“affording

interpretation

regulations.”
Cir. 2008).

appropriate

of

the

INA

Legal issues are
deference

and

any

to

the

attendant

Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th
This Court will reverse the Board only if “the

evidence . . . presented was so compelling that no reasonable
factfinder

could

persecution.”

fail

to

find

the

requisite

fear

of

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v.

INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002).
We conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in
denying reconsideration and reopening.

Cruz-Guillen failed to

specify an error of law or fact concerning the Board’s finding
that he failed to show a nexus between past persecution or fear
of future persecution and a protected ground.
3

Additionally,

Appeal: 16-1867

Doc: 20

Filed: 02/07/2017

Pg: 4 of 4

substantial evidence supports the finding that the previously
unavailable evidence did not show that Cruz-Guillen was targeted
or that there is a reasonable possibility that he will be harmed
on account of his membership in a particular social group.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.

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

4