UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 07-1341

EWART ULRIC VANDECRUIZE, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, 

 Respondent. 

No. 07-1849

EWART ULRIC VANDECRUIZE, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, 

 Respondent. 

No. 08-1303

EWART ULRIC VANDECRUIZE, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, 

 Respondent. 
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: December 17, 2008 Decided: October 20, 2009 

Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Nos. 07-1341 and 07-1849 petitions denied; No. 08-1303 petition 

dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Rachel S. Ullman, YANG & ULLMAN, P.C., Silver Spring, Maryland, 

for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, 

Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant Director, Don G. Scroggin, Office 

of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

2 
PER CURIAM: 

 In these consolidated petitions, Ewart Ulric 

Vandecruize, a native and citizen of Guyana, petitions for 

review of three separate orders of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (“Board”): (1) dismissing his appeal from the 

immigration judge’s decision finding him inadmissible as an 

alien present in the United States without being admitted or 

paroled and as an alien who falsely represented himself to be a 

citizen of the United States for a purpose or benefit under the 

Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and finding him 

ineligible for adjustment of status; (2) denying his motion to 

reconsider; and (3) denying his motion for sua sponte 

reconsideration. 

 Based on our review of the record and the Board’s 

order of April 9, 2007, we conclude that substantial evidence 

supports the finding that Vandecruize failed to meet his burden 

of proving that he was not inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) (2006) as an alien who falsely represented 

himself to be a citizen of the United States for a purpose or 

benefit under the INA. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(b) (2009). We 

have also reviewed the Board’s order of July 31, 2007, and find 

that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying 

Vandecruize’s motion to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) 

(2009). Accordingly, we deny the petitions for review in Case 

3 
4 

Nos. 07-1341 and 07-1849 for the reasons stated by the Board. 

See In re: Vandecruize (B.I.A. Apr. 9 & Jul. 31, 2007). 

 In Case No. 08-1303, Vandecruize challenges the 

Board’s denial of his motion for sua sponte reconsideration. 

Because we lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s refusal to 

exercise its sua sponte authority to reconsider, we dismiss the 

petition for review in No. 08-1303. See Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 

F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, __ S. Ct. __ (U.S. 

Oct. 5, 2009) (No. 08-10795). 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. 

Nos. 07-1341 and 07-1849 PETITIONS DENIED

No. 08-1303 PETITION DISMISSED