Margarita Bartolo-Ramirez v. Merrick Garland
This text of Margarita Bartolo-Ramirez v. Merrick Garland (Margarita Bartolo-Ramirez 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: 23-2044 Doc: 21 Filed: 06/21/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-2044
MARGARITA BARTOLO-RAMIREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: June 7, 2024 Decided: June 21, 2024
Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Abdoul A. Konare, KONARE LAW, Frederick, Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director, Christopher Ian Pryby, Trial Attorney, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-2044 Doc: 21 Filed: 06/21/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Margarita Bartolo-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review
of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision finding her removable and denying her motion for a
continuance pending resolution of her petition for a U-Visa. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(15)(U). Bartolo-Ramirez failed to assert before the Board and IJ that her U-Visa
petition was prima facie approvable. See In re L-A-B-R-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 405, 413
(A.G. 2018) (petitioner bears burden of establishing good cause for a continuance).
Accordingly, we conclude that there was no abuse of discretion in the Board’s order and
dismiss the petition for review. See Gonzalez v. Garland, 16 F.4th 131, 144 (4th Cir. 2021)
(stating standard of review). 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
Margarita Bartolo-Ramirez v. Merrick Garland, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/margarita-bartolo-ramirez-v-merrick-garland-ca4-2024.