Filed: Jan. 14, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1688 RUDIS ONAN CHICAS-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: January 2, 2020 Decided: January 14, 2020 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christina A. Wilkes, WILKES LEGAL, LLC, Takoma Park, Maryland, for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attor
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1688 RUDIS ONAN CHICAS-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: January 2, 2020 Decided: January 14, 2020 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christina A. Wilkes, WILKES LEGAL, LLC, Takoma Park, Maryland, for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorn..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-1688
RUDIS ONAN CHICAS-SANCHEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: January 2, 2020 Decided: January 14, 2020
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christina A. Wilkes, WILKES LEGAL, LLC, Takoma Park, Maryland, for Petitioner.
Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director,
David J. Schor, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Rudis Onan Chicas-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review
of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion for
reconsideration and reopening. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that
the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. 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