Court Opinion

ID: 9831333
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:00:45.45539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:33.803297
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1254      Doc: 18         Filed: 08/31/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1254

        NIKOLA T. GUENOV; VIDA GUEORGUIVA GUENOVA,

                            Petitioners,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: August 29, 2023                                        Decided: August 31, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Andres Y. Mejer, ANDRES MEJER IMMIGRATION ATTORNEYS,
        Eatontown, New Jersey, for Petitioners. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant
        Attorney General, Jonathan Robbins, Assistant Director, Erik R. Quick, Office of
        Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
        Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1254      Doc: 18         Filed: 08/31/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Nikola T. Guenov and his wife, Vida Gueorguiva Guenova (Petitioners), natives

        and citizens of Bulgaria, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

        Appeals denying Petitioners’ motion for sua sponte reopening of their removal

        proceedings. Upon review of the parties’ briefs, considered in conjunction with the

        administrative record and the relevant authorities, we agree with the Attorney General that

        we lack jurisdiction to review the subject order. See Lawrence v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 198,

        206-07 (4th Cir. 2016) (affirming that this court “lack[s] jurisdiction to review how the

        Board exercises its sua sponte discretion”); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th

        Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. 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 DISMISSED

                                                    2