Jesus Garcia-Bautista v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 3, 2024
• Docket: 23-1825
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1825 Doc: 27 Filed: 06/03/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1825

JESUS GARCIA-BAUTISTA,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted: May 30, 2024 Decided: June 3, 2024

Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Rebekah G. Grafton, FAY GRAFTON NUNEZ, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Kohsei Ugumori, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jesse D. Lorenz, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-1825 Doc: 27 Filed: 06/03/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Jesus Garcia-Bautista, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration

judge’s oral decision denying Garcia-Bautista’s application for cancellation of removal

(COR). We deny the petition for review.

Here, the Board held that Garcia-Bautista waived review of the immigration judge’s

alternative, dispositive ruling—to wit: that COR should be denied as a matter of discretion,

see Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 212-13 (2024) (describing the process for

evaluating applications for COR, which requires that the immigration judge first “decide

whether the noncitizen is eligible for cancellation under the relevant statutory criteria” and

then “whether to exercise his discretion favorably and grant the noncitizen relief”)—by

failing to specifically address that aspect of the immigration judge’s holding in his

counseled administrative appeal brief. Because this ruling was dispositive of the

application for COR, the Board declined to reach the arguments Garcia-Bautista raised in

the administrative appeal and affirmed the immigration judge’s denial of relief on this

basis.

Upon consideration of the arguments Garcia-Bautista raises on appeal in

conjunction with the administrative record, we discern no error in the Board’s application

of its procedural waiver rule in this context. See In re D-G-C-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 297, 297

n.1 (B.I.A. 2021) (explaining Board’s procedural rule that issues a noncitizen does “not

meaningfully challenge[ ]” on appeal will be deemed waived); accord Pinos-Gonzalez v.

Mukasey, 519 F.3d 436, 440-41 (8th Cir. 2008) (finding no error in Board’s application of

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1825 Doc: 27 Filed: 06/03/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

procedural waiver to applicant). Garcia-Bautista also challenges the Board’s denial of his

motion to remand the matter to the immigration judge for consideration of new evidence

related to his application but, upon review, we discern no abuse of discretion in this ruling.

See Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 400, 408 (4th Cir. 2005) (providing standard of review).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See In re Garcia-Bautista (B.I.A.

July 21, 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