Bernabe Ramirez-Ramirez v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 2, 2024
• Docket: 21-1261
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1261 Doc: 31 Filed: 08/02/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1261

BERNABE VITALINO RAMIREZ-RAMIREZ,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: July 24, 2024 Decided: August 2, 2024

Before WYNN and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Laura Kelsey Rhodes, LAURA KELSEY RHODES, LLC, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Leslie McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel, Aric A. Anderson, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 21-1261 Doc: 31 Filed: 08/02/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Bernabe Vitalino Ramirez-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal

from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to reconsider the denial

of his second motion to reopen seeking to rescind his in absentia order of removal. We

have reviewed the record and the IJ’s decision and conclude that the Board did not abuse

its discretion in dismissing the appeal. See Narine v. Holder, 559 F.3d 246, 249

(4th Cir. 2009) (stating standard of review). Ramirez-Ramirez’s contention that the IJ did

not have authority to order him removed in absentia because the notice to appear did not

indicate the time and place for the removal proceedings is without merit. See Cedillos-

Cedillos v. Barr, 962 F.3d 817, 823 (4th Cir. 2020) (noting that requirement that notice to

appear include time and date of proceedings is not jurisdictional).

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