Eric Garay Villegas v. Jefferson Sessions III, No. 16-2411 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2411 ERIC RONALDO GARAY VILLEGAS, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: August 9, 2017 Decided: August 16, 2017 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jay S. Marks, LAW OFFICES OF JAY S. MARKS, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Nancy Friedman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kevin J. Conway, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Eric Ronaldo Garay Villegas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen. We have reviewed the Board’s order, in conjunction with the administrative record, and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2017). We therefore deny the petition for review substantially* for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Garay Villegas (B.I.A. Nov. 17, 2016). 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 * Even assuming that Garay Villegas substantially complied with the requirements set forth in In re Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (B.I.A. 1988), as he contends, substantial evidence supports the Board’s alternative conclusion that “the face of the record itself does not demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel.” 2

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.