Meiby Dubon Hernandez v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 3, 2024
• Docket: 23-1769
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1769 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/03/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1769

MEIBY LISBETH DUBON HERNANDEZ,

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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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: Ivan Yacub, YACUB LAW OFFICES, LLC, Woodbridge, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Micah Engler, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-1769 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/03/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Meiby Lisbeth Dubon Hernandez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying Dubon Hernandez’s motion

to reopen her removal proceedings. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse

of discretion. Lawrence v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 198, 203 (4th Cir. 2016); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a),

(c). The “denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed with extreme deference, given that

motions to reopen are disfavored because every delay works to the advantage of the

deportable [noncitizen] who wishes merely to remain in the United States.” Sadhvani v.

Holder, 596 F.3d 180, 182 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We have reviewed the Board’s order, in conjunction with the administrative record

and relevant authorities, and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in holding

that Dubon Hernandez failed to substantially comply with the third requirement identified

in In re Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (B.I.A. 1988), and denying the motion on this basis,

see Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 745-47 (4th Cir. 2006) (discussing Lozada

requirements and explaining that this court will “only review the merits of the [Board’s]

denial of a motion to reopen on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel where the

[noncitizen] has complied with” those requirements). Nor do we discern any abuse of

discretion in the Board’s additional finding that Dubon Hernandez did not demonstrate

prejudice flowing from her former attorney’s alleged ineffective representation. See In re

Melgar, 28 I. & N. Dec. 169, 171 (B.I.A. 2020) (discussing prejudice requirement for

reopening based on an attorney’s alleged ineffective representation).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1769 Doc: 32 Filed: 06/03/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See In re Dubon Hernandez (B.I.A.

July 10, 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