eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 2009-07

Vasquez v. Holder , 329 F. App'x 434 ( 2009 )


Menu:
 
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1486
OSCAR OMAR VASQUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted:   July 10, 2009                  Decided:   July 20, 2009
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aroon R. Padharia, LAW OFFICE OF AROON R. PADHARIA, Washington,
D.C., for Petitioner.    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General,
William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Eric W. Marsteller,
Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Oscar Omar Vasquez, a lawful permanent resident and a
native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his
motion to reopen and his motion to reissue the Board’s order
sustaining the Government’s appeal.                       We deny the petition for
review.
This court reviews the denial of a motion to reopen
for abuse of discretion.
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (a) (2009); INS v.
Doherty,
    502 U.S. 314
    , 323-24 (1992); Mosere v. Mukasey,
    552 F.3d 397
    , 400 (4th Cir. 2009).                    A denial of a motion to reopen
must    be   reviewed         with   extreme       deference,     since       immigration
statutes      do      not     contemplate         reopening     and    the     applicable
regulations disfavor such motions.                       M.A. v. INS,
    899 F.2d 304
    ,
308 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc).                    The motion “shall state the new
facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion
is     granted     and      shall    be    supported       by   affidavits      or     other
evidentiary        material.”
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (c)(1)       (2009).      It
“shall    not      be    granted     unless    it    appears     to    the    Board     that
evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available
and could not have been discovered or presented at the former
hearing.”
    Id.
    We find the Board had authority to enter an order of
removal      after       it   overturned      the        immigration    judge’s        order
2
granting cancellation of removal.               See Cruz-Camey v. Gonzales,
    504 F.3d 28
    , 29-30 (1st Cir. 2007); Lazo v. Gonzales,
    462 F.3d 53
    , 54-55 (2d Cir. 2006).       We also find Vasquez failed to show
his due process rights were violated or that he was prejudiced
by the alleged error in the proceedings.               See Anim v. Mukasey,
    535 F.3d 243
    , 256 (4th Cir. 2008); Dekoladenu v. Gonzales,
    459 F.3d 500
    , 508 (4th Cir. 2006) (“No property or liberty interest
can exist when the relief sought is discretionary.”).                   Finally,
we find the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the
motion to reopen.
Accordingly,   we   deny       the    petition   for     review.      We
dispense   with   oral    argument    because        the    facts     and     legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3