Case Name: Yuriy Sergeyevich VEDMETSKIY, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-14
Citations: 618 F. App'x 179
Docket Number: No. 15-1195
Parties: Yuriy Sergeyevich VEDMETSKIY, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 618
Pages: 179–180

Head Matter:
Yuriy Sergeyevich VEDMETSKIY, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 15-1195.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 9, 2015.
Decided: Oct. 14, 2015.
Yuriy Sergeyevich Vedmetskiy, Petitioner Pro Se. Benjamin C. Mizer, Eric Warren Marsteller, Timothy Bo Stanton, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Yuriy Sergeyevich Vedmetskiy, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") denying his motion to consolidate his appeal with his wife's appeal of her removal order. Because the Board had already dismissed the wife's appeal by the time it adjudicated Vedmet-ski/s motion, we conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to consolidate as moot. We therefore deny the petition for review. See In re: Vedmetskiy (B.I.A. Jan. 26,2015).
Moreover, because we have also denied his wife's petition for review, see Chepurina v. Holder, 599 Fed.Appx. 501 (4th Cir.2015), we deny as moot Vedmetskiy's request that we consolidate their petitions on appeal. 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.
Vedmetskiy only challenges this aspect of the Board's decision.