Dennis Pinto Villeda v. Merrick Garland

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UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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