Filed: Sep. 10, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2210 DOLI ISAIAS VELASQUEZ-DELEON, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: July 30, 2014 Decided: September 10, 2014 Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theodore John Murphy, MURPHY LAW FIRM, PC, West Chester, Pennsylvania, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Dele
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2210 DOLI ISAIAS VELASQUEZ-DELEON, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: July 30, 2014 Decided: September 10, 2014 Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theodore John Murphy, MURPHY LAW FIRM, PC, West Chester, Pennsylvania, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Deler..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2210
DOLI ISAIAS VELASQUEZ-DELEON,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 30, 2014 Decided: September 10, 2014
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Theodore John Murphy, MURPHY LAW FIRM, PC, West Chester,
Pennsylvania, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant
Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Lance L.
Jolley, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Doli Isaias Velasquez-DeLeon, a native and citizen of
Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reconsider the
denial of his untimely motion to reopen. We have reviewed the
administrative record and Velasquez-DeLeon’s contentions, and
conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying
the motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2013). We accordingly
deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the
Board. See In re: Velasquez-DeLeon (B.I.A. Aug. 29, 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