Filed: Mar. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2182 MARITZA MACOL MARTINEZ-RAPALO, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: March 8, 2019 Decided: March 19, 2019 Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maritza Macol Martinez-Rapalo, Petitioner Pro Se. Don George Scroggin, Office o
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2182 MARITZA MACOL MARTINEZ-RAPALO, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: March 8, 2019 Decided: March 19, 2019 Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maritza Macol Martinez-Rapalo, Petitioner Pro Se. Don George Scroggin, Office of..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-2182
MARITZA MACOL MARTINEZ-RAPALO,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: March 8, 2019 Decided: March 19, 2019
Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Maritza Macol Martinez-Rapalo, Petitioner Pro Se. Don George Scroggin, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Maritza Macol Martinez-Rapalo, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to
reopen as untimely and numerically barred. We have reviewed the administrative record
and the Board’s order and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying
the motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2018). We therefore deny the petition for
review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Martinez-Rapalo (B.I.A. Sept. 17,
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