Irma Lanwglois-Roldan v. Loretta Lynch


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A078-147-273 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000159496].. [16-2445]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-2445 Doc: 29 Filed: 09/21/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2445 IRMA IVONNE LANWGLOIS-ROLDAN, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: August 28, 2017 Decided: September 21, 2017 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anna M. Gallagher, MAGGIO & KATTAR, P.C., Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Dawn S. Conrad, Senior Litigation Counsel, Remi Da Rocha-Afodu, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-2445 Doc: 29 Filed: 09/21/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Irma Ivonne Lanwglois-Roldan, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her untimely motion to reopen. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including Lanwglois- Roldan’s supporting evidence and conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. See INS v. Elias– Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. In re Lanwglois-Roldan (B.I.A. Dec. 9, 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 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?