Brandon Viana-Aldana v. Merrick Garland
This text of Brandon Viana-Aldana v. Merrick Garland (Brandon Viana-Aldana v. Merrick Garland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2069 Doc: 34 Filed: 01/08/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-2069
BRANDON VIANA-ALDANA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: November 7, 2023 Decided: January 8, 2024
Before WYNN, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Gregory Osakwe, LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY C. OSAKWE LLC, Hartford, Connecticut, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Bernard A. Joseph, Senior Litigation Counsel, Craig W. Kuhn, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-2069 Doc: 34 Filed: 01/08/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Brandon Viana-Aldana, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of
an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration
Judge’s denial of his untimely motion to reopen. We have reviewed the administrative
record and Viana-Aldana’s claims and conclude that the agency did not abuse its discretion
in denying reopening. See Wanrong Lin v. Holder, 771 F.3d 177, 185 (4th Cir. 2014)
(noting that alien’s burden to satisfy the changed country conditions exception “was to
show that country conditions in [El Salvador] were materially different from those
conditions at the time of his original removal proceedings”). To the extent Viana-Aldana
challenges the agency’s denial of his request for sua sponte reopening, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.23(b)(1) (2022), we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision, see Lawrence
v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 198, 206–07 (4th Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.
See In re Viana-Aldana (B.I.A. Sept. 13, 2022). 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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Brandon Viana-Aldana v. Merrick Garland, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brandon-viana-aldana-v-merrick-garland-ca4-2024.