Ever Cruz-Guillen v. Dana Boente , 675 F. App'x 379 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1867
EVER JOSUE CRUZ-GUILLEN,
Petitioner,
v.
DANA JAMES BOENTE, Acting Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: January 19, 2017 Decided: February 7, 2017
Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew W. Clopman, ANDREW W. CLOPMAN, P.A., Stuart, Florida, for
Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Matthew
A. Connelly, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ever Josue Cruz-Guillen, a native and citizen of Honduras,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reconsider and reopen.
For the reasons set forth below, we deny the petition for
review.
The denial of a motion to reconsider is reviewed for abuse
of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2016); Urbina v. Holder,
745 F.3d 736, 741 (4th Cir. 2014); Narine v. Holder, 559 F.3d
246, 249 (4th Cir. 2009). A motion to reconsider asserts that
the Board made an error in its earlier decision. The movant
must specify the error of fact or law in the Board’s prior
decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (2016). We will reverse
the denial of a motion to reconsider “only if the Board acted
arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law.” Narine, 559
F.3d at 249 (internal quotation marks omitted).
We also review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse
of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S.
314, 323-24 (1992); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th
Cir. 2009). The Board’s “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)
2
(internal quotation marks omitted). The motion “shall state the
new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the
motion is granted and shall be supported by affidavits or other
evidentiary material.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (2016). It
“shall not be granted unless it appears to the Board that
evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available
and could not have been discovered or presented at the former
hearing.” Id.“[A]dministrative findings of fact are conclusive unless
any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012). Legal issues are
reviewed de novo, “affording appropriate deference to the
[Board’s]’s interpretation of the INA and any attendant
regulations.” Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th
Cir. 2008). This Court will reverse the Board only if “the
evidence . . . presented was so compelling that no reasonable
factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of
persecution.” Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v.
INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002).
We conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in
denying reconsideration and reopening. Cruz-Guillen failed to
specify an error of law or fact concerning the Board’s finding
that he failed to show a nexus between past persecution or fear
of future persecution and a protected ground. Additionally,
3
substantial evidence supports the finding that the previously
unavailable evidence did not show that Cruz-Guillen was targeted
or that there is a reasonable possibility that he will be harmed
on account of his membership in a particular social group.
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
4