Court Opinion

ID: 9918410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-12 21:00:38.611117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:14.075748
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1012      Doc: 40         Filed: 01/11/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1012

        MIGUEL ADALBERTO PONCE-ARBAIZA,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: December 19, 2023                                      Decided: January 11, 2024

        Before THACKER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Robert J. Harris, Woodbridge, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton,
        Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director,
        Kathleen Kelly Volkert, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-1012     Doc: 40         Filed: 01/11/2024   Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Miguel Adalberto Ponce-Arbaiza, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for

        review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to

        reconsider. We have reviewed the administrative record and Ponce-Arbaiza’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

        Ponce-Arbaiza (B.I.A. Dec. 7, 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