Court Opinion

ID: 9916371
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-09 21:00:56.163831+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:10.636900
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2069      Doc: 34         Filed: 01/08/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2069

        BRANDON VIANA-ALDANA,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: November 7, 2023                                       Decided: January 8, 2024

        Before WYNN, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Gregory Osakwe, LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY C. OSAKWE LLC,
        Hartford, Connecticut, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant
        Attorney General, Bernard A. Joseph, Senior Litigation Counsel, Craig W. Kuhn, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-2069      Doc: 34         Filed: 01/08/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Brandon Viana-Aldana, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of

        an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration

        Judge’s denial of his untimely motion to reopen. We have reviewed the administrative

        record and Viana-Aldana’s claims and conclude that the agency did not abuse its discretion

        in denying reopening. See Wanrong Lin v. Holder, 771 F.3d 177, 185 (4th Cir. 2014)

        (noting that alien’s burden to satisfy the changed country conditions exception “was to

        show that country conditions in [El Salvador] were materially different from those

        conditions at the time of his original removal proceedings”). To the extent Viana-Aldana

        challenges the agency’s denial of his request for sua sponte reopening, see 8 C.F.R.

        § 1003.23(b)(1) (2022), we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision, see Lawrence

        v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 198, 206–07 (4th Cir. 2016).

               Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.

        See In re Viana-Aldana (B.I.A. Sept. 13, 2022). 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