Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02575/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02575-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ruben Gonzalez-Machuca
Petitioner
Loretta E. Lynch
Respondent

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2575

RUBEN GONZALEZ-MACHUCA,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: August 25, 2016 Decided: September 12, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, 

Maryland, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy

Assistant Attorney General, John W. Blakeley, Assistant Director, 

W. Daniel Shieh, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2575 Doc: 31 Filed: 09/12/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Ruben Gonzalez-Machuca, 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

(IJ) order finding that he abandoned his application for 

cancellation of removal. After thoroughly reviewing the record

and considering Gonzalez-Machuca’s arguments, we conclude that the

Board did not abuse its discretion by agreeing with the IJ that 

Gonzalez-Machuca abandoned his application for cancellation of 

removal. See Yanez-Marquez v. Lynch, 789 F.3d 434, 444 (4th Cir. 

2015) (applying an abuse of discretion standard to review of BIA 

decisions); Moreta v. Holder, 723 F.3d 31, 34 (1st Cir. 2013) 

(stating standard of review). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons 

stated by the Board. See In re Gonzalez-Machuca, (B.I.A. Nov. 27, 

2015). 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

Appeal: 15-2575 Doc: 31 Filed: 09/12/2016 Pg: 2 of 2