Filed: Aug. 23, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1823 JOSE JEOVANY PEREZ, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 19, 2019 Decided: August 23, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jay S. Marks, LAW OFFICES OF JAY S. MARKS, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Josep
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1823 JOSE JEOVANY PEREZ, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 19, 2019 Decided: August 23, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jay S. Marks, LAW OFFICES OF JAY S. MARKS, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Joseph..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1823
JOSE JEOVANY PEREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: February 19, 2019 Decided: August 23, 2019
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jay S. Marks, LAW OFFICES OF JAY S. MARKS, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for
Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Jessica E. Burns, Senior
Litigation Counsel, John B. Holt, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Jeovany Perez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the
Immigration Judge’s order denying his untimely motion to reopen. We have reviewed
the administrative record and find no abuse of discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3)
(2012). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.
See In re Perez (B.I.A. June 21, 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