Court Opinion

ID: 9368361
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-03 21:01:02.792896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:08.602084
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1184      Doc: 21         Filed: 02/02/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1184

        ROSALVA VERONICA PENA-CARTAGENA,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: December 20, 2022                                      Decided: February 2, 2023

        Before AGEE and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Jay S. Marks, Zindzi Baugh Corbett, LAW OFFICES OF JAY S. MARKS,
        LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy
        Assistant Attorney General, Kiley Kane, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrea N. Gevas,
        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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-1184         Doc: 21     Filed: 02/02/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Rosalva Veronica Pena-Cartagena, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for

        review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her untimely

        motion to reopen. We have reviewed the administrative record and Pena-Cartagena’s

        claims and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See

        Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we deny the petition

        for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Pena-Cartagena (B.I.A. Jan. 25,

        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