Gilbert Benson v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2069 Doc: 28 Filed: 12/28/2021 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-2069
GILBERT BENSON,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: September 2, 2021 Decided: December 28, 2021
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and HARRIS and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joshua Adam Berman, Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Marie V. Robinson,
Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 20-2069 Doc: 28 Filed: 12/28/2021 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Gilbert Benson, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions for review of the order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s denial of his motion to reopen. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for
abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3) (2021); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-
24 (1992); Lawrence v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 198, 203 (4th Cir. 2016). The “denial of a motion
to reopen is reviewed with extreme deference, given that motions to reopen are disfavored
because every delay works to the advantage of the deportable alien who wishes merely to
remain in the United States.” Sadhvani v. Holder, 596 F.3d 180, 182 (4th Cir. 2009)
(internal quotation marks omitted). We will reverse a denial of a motion to reopen only if
it is “arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.” Lawrence, 826 F.3d at 203 (internal
quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in finding that Benson did
not substantially comply with the procedural requirements under In re Lozada, 19 I. & N.
Dec. 637 (B.I.A. 1988). We further conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in
finding that Benson failed to show prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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