Maria Gomez-Lemuz v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 27, 2024
• Docket: 23-2179
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2179 Doc: 47 Filed: 06/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-2179

MARIA GUADALUPE GOMEZ-LEMUZ,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted: June 25, 2024 Decided: June 27, 2024

Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: John E. Gallagher, Catonsville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Sabatino F. Leo, Assistant Director, Corey L. Farrell, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-2179 Doc: 47 Filed: 06/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Maria Guadalupe Gomez-Lemuz, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying her motion to reissue the

Board’s decision of March 3, 2023, which upheld the immigration judge’s denial of

Gomez-Lemuz’s applications for relief from removal and denied Gomez-Lemuz’s motion

for remand. Upon consideration of the parties’ arguments on appeal, in conjunction with

the record and relevant authorities, we discern no abuse of discretion in the Board’s order

denying the motion to reissue. Accord Ping Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 502 F.3d 73, 75 (2d

Cir. 2007) (explaining that a motion to reissue is treated as a motion to reopen and reviewed

for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See In re Gomez-

Lemuz (B.I.A. Oct. 13, 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