Filed: Oct. 30, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1381 MACEDONIO HERNANDEZ HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: October 22, 2018 Decided: October 30, 2018 Before WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark J. Devine, Charleston, South Carolina, for Petitioner. Cha
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1381 MACEDONIO HERNANDEZ HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: October 22, 2018 Decided: October 30, 2018 Before WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark J. Devine, Charleston, South Carolina, for Petitioner. Chad..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1381
MACEDONIO HERNANDEZ HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: October 22, 2018 Decided: October 30, 2018
Before WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark J. Devine, Charleston, South Carolina, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, Song Park, Senior Litigation Counsel, Joseph A. O’Connell,
Emily Kvalheim, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Macedonio Hernandez Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion for
reconsideration. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the Board did
not abuse its discretion by denying reconsideration. See Urbina v. Holder,
745 F.3d 736,
741 (4th Cir. 2014) (stating standard of review). 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 this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2