Filed: Sep. 14, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1248 NADIA MARGARITA MARTINEZ-SAENZ, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: August 20, 2018 Decided: September 14, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nadia Margarita Martinez-Saenz, Petitioner Pro Se. Sara J. Bayram, Lori
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1248 NADIA MARGARITA MARTINEZ-SAENZ, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: August 20, 2018 Decided: September 14, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nadia Margarita Martinez-Saenz, Petitioner Pro Se. Sara J. Bayram, Lori ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1248
NADIA MARGARITA MARTINEZ-SAENZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: August 20, 2018 Decided: September 14, 2018
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nadia Margarita Martinez-Saenz, Petitioner Pro Se. Sara J. Bayram, Lori B. Warlick,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Nadia Margarita Martinez-Saenz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to
reconsider. We have reviewed the administrative record and conclude that the Board did
not abuse its discretion in denying the motion on the ground that Martinez-Saenz failed to
specify an error of fact or law in the Board’s prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1)
(2018). We therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See
In re Martinez-Saenz (B.I.A. Feb. 8, 2018). 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