Case ID: f-appx_584/html/0175-01.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

Benito SANCHEZ-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-1256.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 8, 2014.
    Decided: Oct. 20, 2014.
    Arturo H. Hernandez, Sterling, Virginia, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Nancy Friedman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Margaret A. O’Donnell, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
   Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Benito Sanchez-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s order and find no error in the Board’s conclusion that Sanchez-Garcia is statutorily ineligible for both forms of relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(c) (2012) (providing that an alien shall not be permitted to “depart voluntarily ... if the alien was previously permitted to so depart after having been found inadmissible under [8 U.S.C. § ]• 1182(a)(6)(A) [2012])”; Garcia v. Holder, 732 F.3d 308 (4th Cir.2013) (holding that Board’s ruling that alien’s continuous physical presence terminated when he voluntarily departed country was a reasonable interpretation of 8 U.S.C. .§ 1229b (2012)).

We therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Sanchez-Garcia (B.I.A. Feb. 21, 2014). 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.