Vandecruize v. Holder , 347 F. App'x 973 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1341
EWART ULRIC VANDECRUIZE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-1849
EWART ULRIC VANDECRUIZE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-1303
EWART ULRIC VANDECRUIZE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: December 17, 2008 Decided: October 20, 2009
Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Nos. 07-1341 and 07-1849 petitions denied; No. 08-1303 petition
dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rachel S. Ullman, YANG & ULLMAN, P.C., Silver Spring, Maryland,
for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General,
Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant Director, Don G. Scroggin, Office
of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated petitions, Ewart Ulric
Vandecruize, a native and citizen of Guyana, petitions for
review of three separate orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”): (1) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s decision finding him inadmissible as an
alien present in the United States without being admitted or
paroled and as an alien who falsely represented himself to be a
citizen of the United States for a purpose or benefit under the
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and finding him
ineligible for adjustment of status; (2) denying his motion to
reconsider; and (3) denying his motion for sua sponte
reconsideration.
Based on our review of the record and the Board’s
order of April 9, 2007, we conclude that substantial evidence
supports the finding that Vandecruize failed to meet his burden
of proving that he was not inadmissible under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) (2006) as an alien who falsely represented
himself to be a citizen of the United States for a purpose or
benefit under the INA. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(b) (2009). We
have also reviewed the Board’s order of July 31, 2007, and find
that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying
Vandecruize’s motion to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a)
(2009). Accordingly, we deny the petitions for review in Case
3
Nos. 07-1341 and 07-1849 for the reasons stated by the Board.
See In re: Vandecruize (B.I.A. Apr. 9 & Jul. 31, 2007).
In Case No. 08-1303, Vandecruize challenges the
Board’s denial of his motion for sua sponte reconsideration.
Because we lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s refusal to
exercise its sua sponte authority to reconsider, we dismiss the
petition for review in No. 08-1303. See Mosere v. Mukasey, 552
F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, __ S. Ct. __ (U.S.
Oct. 5, 2009) (No. 08-10795). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
Nos. 07-1341 and 07-1849 PETITIONS DENIED
No. 08-1303 PETITION DISMISSED
4