Alejandro Gonzales-Silva v. Michael B. Mukasey, No. 06-1938 (4th Cir. 2008)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1938 ALEJANDRO GONZALES-SILVA, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 07-1143 ALEJANDRO GONZALES-SILVA, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 07-1683 ALEJANDRO GONZALES-SILVA, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: December 15, 2008 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petitions dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas A. Elliot, Fabienne Chatain, Thomas H. Tousley, ELLIOT & MAYOCK, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Lyle D. Jentzer, Senior Litigation Counsel, Stacey I. Young, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Alejandro Gonzales-Silva, a native and citizen of Peru, seeks review of orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the Immigration Judge s discretionary denial of his motions application to reopen for and adjustment of reconsider. status We have and denying fully his considered Gonzales-Silva s contentions, and conclude that we are without jurisdiction to review discretionary denial § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Board s adjustment (2006). of order affirming status. Next, we See have 8 the U.S.C. reviewed Gonzales-Silva s arguments and find no abuse of discretion in the Board s orders denying Gonzales-Silva s motions to reopen and reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2008); Afanwi v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 788 (4th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petitions for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITIONS DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART 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.