Edwin Miranda-Mendez v. Merrick Garland

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1097 Doc: 28 Filed: 12/10/2024 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1097 EDWIN ANTONIO MIRANDA-MENDEZ, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order for the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: December 3, 2024 Decided: December 10, 2024 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and BERNER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: John E. Gallagher, Catonsville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Assistant Director, Todd J. Cochran, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. *2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1097 Doc: 28 Filed: 12/10/2024 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Edwin Antonio Miranda-Mendez, 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 declining to reopen sua sponte. Upon review, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of Miranda-Mendez’s untimely motion. See Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009) (reviewing denial of motion to reopen as untimely for abuse of discretion). Further, we lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s refusal to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen. See Lawrence v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 198, 206 (4th Cir. 2016); Mosere, 552 F.3d at 400-01. We therefore deny in part, and dismiss in part, Miranda-Mendez’s petition for review. In re Miranda-Mendez (B.I.A. Dec. 29, 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 IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART