Court Opinion

ID: 9947028
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 21:01:30.492208+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:45.541895
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1771      Doc: 19         Filed: 02/29/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1771

        CLODOALDO E. CARRANZA RIVERA,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: February 27, 2024                                 Decided: February 29, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Eric H. Kirchman, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton,
        Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Sabatino F. Leo, Assistant Director, Corey
        L. Farrell, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
        DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1771         Doc: 19      Filed: 02/29/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Clodoaldo E. Carranza Rivera, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for

        review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying Carranza Rivera’s motion

        for reconsideration of the Board’s prior order affirming the immigration judge’s denial of

        Carranza Rivera’s application for cancellation of removal. Upon review of the record, we

        discern no abuse of discretion in the Board’s rationale for denying the motion to reconsider.

        See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (b)(1); Mejia-Velasquez v. Garland, 26 F.4th 193, 205 (4th Cir.

        2022) (providing standard of review and explaining that the Board abuses its discretion

        only if it “acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law” (internal quotation marks

        omitted)). Specifically, the Board’s order reflects its evaluation of the arguments Carranza

        Rivera asserted in his motion for reconsideration, which were accurately characterized as

        a rehash of the arguments raised and rejected in Carranza Rivera’s initial administrative

        appeal. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See In re Carranza Rivera (B.I.A.

        June 27, 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