Case ID: f-appx_388/html/0334-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ismael CAZAREZ; Elvia Castillo, a/k/a Elvia Castillo Hernandez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-2068.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 12, 2010.
    Decided: July 21, 2010.
    Michael W. Lin, Braverman & Lin, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioners. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Ada E. Bosque, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ismael Cazarez and his wife, Elvia Castillo, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of Cazarez’s application for adjustment of status. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and affirm the denial of relief for the reasons stated by the Board. In re: Cazarez (B.I.A. Aug. 21, 2009); see Ramirez v. Holder, 609 F.3d 331, 334-35 (4th Cir.2010) (holding that an alien who is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) (2006) is ineligible for adjustment of status pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) (2006) and rejecting alien’s nunc pro tunc argument); Matter of Torres-Garcia, 23 I. & N. Dec. 866, 876 (B.I.A. 2006) (holding that “an alien may not obtain a waiver of the section [1182](a)(9)(C)(i) ground of inadmissibility, retroactively or prospectively, without regard to the 10-year limitation set forth at section [1182](a)(9)(C)(ii)”). 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED.