Josue Soto De Leon v. Loretta Lynch ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-2234
    JOSUE ISRAEL SOTO DE LEON,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals.
    Submitted:   May 15, 2015                   Decided:   June 8, 2015
    Before WILKINSON and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Hugo   Cesar  Castro,   Rockville,   Maryland,  for   Petitioner.
    Benjamin C. Mizer, Assistant Attorney General, Francis W.
    Fraser, Senior Litigation Counsel, Regina Byrd, UNITED STATES
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Josue    Israel      Soto    De    Leon,    a    native       and     citizen    of
    Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
    Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reconsider.
    We   review    the    Board’s      decision     denying      De   Leon’s      motion    to
    reconsider for abuse of discretion, Jean v. Gonzales, 
    435 F.3d 475
    , 481 (4th Cir. 2006), and may only reverse if the Board
    “‘acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law,’” Narine
    v. Holder, 
    559 F.3d 246
    , 249 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Mohammed
    v.   Gonzales,       
    400 F.3d 785
    ,   791    (9th   Cir.      2005)).       We     have
    reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s order and
    find    no    such    abuse   of    discretion.         We     therefore       deny    the
    petition for review.             See In re: Soto De Leon (B.I.A. Oct. 15,
    2014).       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