Case Name: Ruben Ruth SOLIS-SARAVERRIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-01-13
Citations: 549 F. App'x 225
Docket Number: No. 12-2312
Parties: Ruben Ruth SOLIS-SARAVERRIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 549
Pages: 225–225

Head Matter:
Ruben Ruth SOLIS-SARAVERRIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-2312.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 23, 2013.
Decided: Jan. 13, 2014.
Ruben Ruth Solis-Saraverria, Petitioner Pro Se. Ada Elsie Bosque, Matthew Allan Spurlock, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ruben Ruth Solis-Salaverria, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's order finding him removable and that he was statutorily ineligible for Temporary Protected Status ("TPS"), 8 U.S.C. § 1254a (2012). The Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss based on the contention that the petition for review was untimely filed. While we deny the Attorney General's motion, we also deny the petition for review.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the Board properly found that Solis-Salaverria was not eligible for TPS status because of his two misdemeanor convictions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(c)(2)(B)(i). We further conclude that the notice to appear was not defective. See Guamanrrigra v. Holder, 670 F.3d 404, 409-10 (2d Cir.2012); Popa v. Holder, 571 F.3d 890, 895-96 (9th Cir.2009).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We also deny the Attorney General's motion to dismiss. 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.