Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Lorenzo Juarez-Sanchez v. Eric Holder, Jr., 13-1663 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-1663 Visitors: 31
Filed: Jan. 14, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1663 LORENZO JUAREZ-SANCHEZ, a/k/a Lorenzo Juarez Sanchez, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: December 13, 2013 Decided: January 14, 2014 Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anser Ahmad, ADVANCED IMMIGRATION LAW GROUP, Ha
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1663 LORENZO JUAREZ-SANCHEZ, a/k/a Lorenzo Juarez Sanchez, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: December 13, 2013 Decided: January 14, 2014 Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anser Ahmad, ADVANCED IMMIGRATION LAW GROUP, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Jesi J. Carlson, Senior Litigation Counsel, Daniel B. Mullen, Law Clerk, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Lorenzo Juarez-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to remand and affirming the Immigration Judge’s decision denying relief from removal. Juarez-Sanchez asserts that the agency erred in denying his application for cancellation of removal and that the Board abused its discretion in denying his motion to remand. We have reviewed the administrative record and Juarez-Sanchez’s claims and conclude that they are without merit. We accordingly deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Juarez-Sanchez, (B.I.A. Apr. 19, 2013). 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer