Elpidia Cruz v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 08-2261 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2261 ELPIDIA MANALANSAN CRUZ; SHERYLENE MANALANSAN CRUZ, Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 20, 2009 Decided: April 9, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hugo R. Valverde, VALVERDE & ROWELL, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Petitioners. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Robbin Blaya, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Elpidia Manalansan Cruz, Manalansan natives Cruz and and her citizens daughter, of the Sherylene Philippines, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) denying their untimely motion to reopen. We deny the petition for review. This court reviews the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2008); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Barry v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 741, 744 (4th Cir. 2006). must be reviewed do statutes with A denial of a motion to reopen contemplate not extreme deference, reopening regulations disfavor such motions. 308 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc). since and the immigration applicable M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, We will reverse the Board s denial of a motion to reopen only if the denial is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary [A]dministrative to findings law. of fact Barry, are 445 F.3d conclusive at 745. unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). decision need only be reasoned, not convincing. The Board s M.A., 899 F.2d at 310. We find no abuse of discretion. without jurisdiction to review the Furthermore, we are Board s decision not to exercise its authority to sua sponte reopen the proceedings. 2 See Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2009). further note there is no Fifth Amendment right to We effective assistance of counsel during the course of removal proceedings. See Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631, 637 (4th Cir. 2008); Afanwi v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 788, 799 (4th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny argument the petition because the for facts review. and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
