Edwin Miranda-Mendez v. Merrick Garland
This text of Edwin Miranda-Mendez v. Merrick Garland (Edwin Miranda-Mendez 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: 24-1097 Doc: 28 Filed: 12/10/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1097
EDWIN ANTONIO MIRANDA-MENDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order for the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: December 3, 2024 Decided: December 10, 2024
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: John E. Gallagher, Catonsville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Assistant Director, Todd J. Cochran, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 24-1097 Doc: 28 Filed: 12/10/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Edwin Antonio Miranda-Mendez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to
reopen and declining to reopen sua sponte. Upon review, we find no abuse of discretion
in the denial of Miranda-Mendez’s untimely motion. See Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d
397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009) (reviewing denial of motion to reopen as untimely for abuse of
discretion). Further, we lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s refusal to exercise its
sua sponte authority to reopen. See Lawrence v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 198, 206 (4th Cir. 2016);
Mosere, 552 F.3d at 400-01.
We therefore deny in part, and dismiss in part, Miranda-Mendez’s petition for
review. In re Miranda-Mendez (B.I.A. Dec. 29, 2023). 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
Edwin Miranda-Mendez v. Merrick Garland, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwin-miranda-mendez-v-merrick-garland-ca4-2024.