Oscar Umana-Hernandes v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 538 F. App'x 298 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1081
OSCAR ARMANDO UMANA-HERNANDES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 23, 2013 Decided: August 23, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joshua A. Moses, JOSHUA MOSES & ASSOCIATES, Silver Spring,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Gregory
M. Kelch, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Oscar Armando Umana-Hernandes, a native and citizen of
El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his application for
temporary protected status (“TPS”). We have thoroughly reviewed
the record and Umana-Hernandes’ challenges to 8 C.F.R. § 1244.1(2013) (defining felony for purposes of TPS eligibility) and
find them without merit. Applying the two-step analysis
prescribed by the Supreme Court in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v.
Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), we
conclude that the agency’s promulgation of the regulation was
based on a reasonable interpretation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1254a(c)(2)(B)(i) (2006) and was not arbitrary, capricious, or
manifestly contrary to the statute. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at
844 (providing that a regulation promulgated to fill a gap left,
implicitly or explicitly, by Congress is “given controlling
weight unless [it is] arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly
contrary to the statute”); Suisa v. Holder, 609 F.3d 314, 319
(4th Cir. 2010) (same).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the
reasons stated by the Board. In re: Umana-Hernandes (B.I.A.
Dec. 27, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3