Dennis Pinto Villeda v. Merrick Garland
This text of Dennis Pinto Villeda v. Merrick Garland (Dennis Pinto Villeda 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: 23-1869 Doc: 31 Filed: 07/16/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1869
DENNIS NOE PINTO VILLEDA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: June 12, 2024 Decided: July 16, 2024
Before KING, HARRIS, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: James Doyle Brousseau, BROUSSEAU & LEE, PLLC, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Zoe J. Heller, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jaclyn E. Shea, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-1869 Doc: 31 Filed: 07/16/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Dennis Noe Pinto Villeda, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of
an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen and
declining to reopen sua sponte. We conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in
finding that Pinto Villeda did not establish changed country conditions to warrant granting
an untimely motion for reopening. Garcia Hernandez v. Garland, 27 F.4th 263, 266
(4th Cir. 2022) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we deny the petition in part.
And we dismiss the petition in part because this court lacks jurisdiction to review the
Board’s order sua sponte denying reopening. See Lawrence v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 198, 206-
07 (4th Cir. 2016) (affirming that this court lacks jurisdiction to review how the Board
exercises its sua sponte discretion); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400-01
(4th Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review in part and dismiss in part. 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 IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Dennis Pinto Villeda v. Merrick Garland, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dennis-pinto-villeda-v-merrick-garland-ca4-2024.