Wilmer Reyes v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 19, 2024
• Docket: 23-1231
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1231 Doc: 37 Filed: 04/19/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1231

WILMER ANTONIO REYES,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted: April 9, 2024 Decided: April 19, 2024

Before WILKINSON and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Maria Ines Gonzalez, Woodside, New York, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Walter Bocchini, Senior Litigation Counsel, Gregory M. Kelch, Senior Trial Attorney, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-1231 Doc: 37 Filed: 04/19/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Wilmer Antonio Reyes, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the

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

judge’s (“IJ”) decision pretermitting Reyes’ applications for asylum, withholding of

removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, and cancellation of removal.

The IJ also denied Reyes’ motion for change of venue and a continuance. Reyes’ sole issue

before this court is whether the IJ erred in denying a change of venue. We review the

agency’s denial of a motion to change venue for abuse of discretion. See Dugboe v. Holder,

644 F.3d 462, 471 (6th Cir. 2011). We have reviewed the administrative record and Reyes’

arguments before this court. We conclude that the agency did not abuse its discretion.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for 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