Court Opinion

ID: 9389428
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 17:01:31.040959+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:27.547201
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2155      Doc: 19         Filed: 04/24/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2155

        ANTONIETA MARTA ROMERO-DIAZ; W.A.E.,

                            Petitioners,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: April 20, 2023                                         Decided: April 24, 2023

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

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Eric H. Kirchman, KIRCHMAN & KIRCHMAN, Rockville, Maryland, for
        Petitioners. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R.
        Goad, Assistant Director, Monica G. Antoun, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-2155       Doc: 19         Filed: 04/24/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Petitioners Antonieta Marta Romero-Diaz and her minor son, W.A.E., natives and

        citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

        denying Romero-Diaz’s motion for reconsideration of the Board’s prior order affirming

        the immigration judge’s oral decision denying all forms of relief. 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) (2022); 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)). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See In re Romero-Diaz

        (B.I.A. Oct. 12, 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