Eric Ronaldo Garay Villegas v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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