Court Opinion

ID: 9898632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 21:00:48.4544+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:36.810085
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1249      Doc: 31         Filed: 11/13/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1249

        MARIA DEL CARMEN RIVERA-DE ARTEAGA,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: October 26, 2023                                 Decided: November 13, 2023

        Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Manuel Rivera, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal
        Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director, Dana M.
        Camilleri, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-1249      Doc: 31         Filed: 11/13/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Maria Del Carmen Rivera-De Arteaga, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions

        for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying her motion to

        reconsider. We have reviewed the administrative record and Rivera-De Arteaga’s claims

        and find no abuse of discretion. See Williams v. Garland, 59 F.4th 620, 632 (4th Cir. 2023)

        (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See In re

        Rivera-De Arteaga (B.I.A. Feb. 24, 2023). 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