Court Opinion

ID: 9388194
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-19 21:01:15.974348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:18.813210
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1507      Doc: 23         Filed: 04/18/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1507

        JAVIER ALEXIS REYES,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: February 17, 2023                                      Decided: April 18, 2023

        Before RICHARDSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Ivan Yacub, YACUB LAW OFFICES, LLC, Woodbridge, Virginia, for
        Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Janice K.
        Redfern, Senior Litigation Counsel, Beau J. Baumann, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-1507      Doc: 23         Filed: 04/18/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Javier Alexis Reyes, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of an

        order of the Board of Immigration Appeals adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s

        decision denying Reyes’ motion to terminate and denying his application for cancellation

        of removal.     On appeal, Reyes raises a single claim, contending that 8 C.F.R.

        § 1003.15(b)-(c) (2022) is inconsistent with 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(G) and is therefore ultra

        vires. We find no reversible error and so deny the petition for review. 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

                                                     2