Ruben Solis-Saraverria v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 12-2312
    RUBEN RUTH SOLIS-SARAVERRIA,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals.
    Submitted:   December 23, 2013              Decided:   January 13, 2014
    Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ruben Ruth Solis-Saraverria, Petitioner Pro Se.             Ada Elsie
    Bosque,   Matthew   Allan Spurlock,  Office  of            Immigration
    Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,           Washington,
    D.C., for Respondent.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Ruben Ruth Solis-Salaverria, a native and citizen of
    El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
    Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration
    judge’s order finding him removable and that he was statutorily
    ineligible     for    Temporary        Protected          Status      (“TPS”),    8    U.S.C.
    § 1254a (2012).            The Attorney General has filed a motion to
    dismiss based on the contention that the petition for review was
    untimely filed.       While we deny the Attorney General’s motion, we
    also deny the petition for review.
    We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude
    that   the   Board    properly         found       that    Solis-Salaverria           was   not
    eligible     for     TPS     status         because       of    his     two     misdemeanor
    convictions.         See    8   U.S.C.       § 1254a(c)(2)(B)(i).               We    further
    conclude     that    the    notice     to     appear      was    not    defective.          See
    Guamanrrigra v. Holder, 
    670 F.3d 404
    , 409-10 (2d Cir. 2012);
    Popa v. Holder, 
    571 F.3d 890
    , 895-96 (9th Cir. 2009).
    Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.                            We also
    deny the Attorney General’s motion to dismiss.                          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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-2312

Judges: Shedd, Diaz, Floyd

Filed Date: 1/13/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024