Court Opinion

ID: 9391678
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-02 21:00:29.309612+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:43.807521
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1208      Doc: 25            Filed: 05/01/2023   Pg: 1 of 2

                                               UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                 No. 22-1208

        YESSENIA I. MONDRAGON-BETANCO,

                                Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: December 14, 2022                                           Decided: May 1, 2023

        Before QUATTLEBAUM and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Robert J. Harris, Woodbridge, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton,
        Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Holly M. Smith, Assistant Director, David
        J. Schor, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-1208         Doc: 25     Filed: 05/01/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Yessenia I. Mondragon-Betanco, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for

        review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (Board) order upholding the Immigration

        Judge’s (IJ) denial of her motion to reopen sua sponte. Upon review, we conclude that we

        lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision affirming the IJ and declining to reopen

        sua sponte. See Lawrence v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 198, 206-07 (4th Cir. 2016); Mosere v.

        Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2009).

              We therefore dismiss the petition for review. In re Mondragon-Betanco (B.I.A.

        Feb. 1, 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.

                                                                                    DISMISSED

                                                    2