Carlos Perez v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 09-1940 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1940 CARLOS ENRIQUE GUOX PEREZ; JUANA LUCIA CHAJ SARAT, Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: June 8, 2010 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aaron R. Caruso, ABOD & CARUSO, LLC, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioners. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, David M. McConnell, Deputy Director, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Carlos Enrique Guox Perez ( Perez ) and his wife, Juana Lucia Chaj Sarat (collectively Petitioners ), natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ), dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge s order denying their applications for special rule cancellation of removal under § 203 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act ( NACARA ). See Pub. L. No. 105-100, 111 Stat. 2160, 2193- 2201 (1997), amended by Pub. L. No. 105-139, 111 Stat. 2644, 2644-45 (1997) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 8 U.S.C.). Petitioners assert the Board committed legal error by failing to review de novo the immigration judge s order. We disagree. Petitioners raised only one issue in their appeal to the Board, and characterized immigration we find as an issue court s findings that of issue fact. of fact The for is most Board clear accurately reviews error. the See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i) (2010) ( The Board will not engage in de novo review of findings of fact determined by an immigration 2 judge. ). We conclude the Board did not err in its adjudication of Petitioners appeal. * 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 * To the extent that Petitioners administrative appeal could have been construed to assert an issue of law, we note that, while the Board has the discretion to review legal issues de novo, it is not obligated to do so. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii) (2010); see also Pinos-Gonzales v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 436, 440 (8th Cir. 2008) (rejecting argument that the Board is required to review legal issues de novo). 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.
