Eric Ronaldo Garay Villegas v. Loretta Lynch


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying petition for review [999986290-2]. Originating case number: A200-233-985. Copies to all parties and the agency. [1000137974].. [16-2411]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-2411 Doc: 27 Filed: 08/16/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2411 ERIC RONALDO GARAY VILLEGAS, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: August 9, 2017 Decided: August 16, 2017 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jay S. Marks, LAW OFFICES OF JAY S. MARKS, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Nancy Friedman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kevin J. Conway, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-2411 Doc: 27 Filed: 08/16/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Eric Ronaldo Garay Villegas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen. We have reviewed the Board’s order, in conjunction with the administrative record, and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2017). We therefore deny the petition for review substantially* for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Garay Villegas (B.I.A. Nov. 17, 2016). 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 * Even assuming that Garay Villegas substantially complied with the requirements set forth in In re Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (B.I.A. 1988), as he contends, substantial evidence supports the Board’s alternative conclusion that “the face of the record itself does not demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel.” 2

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?