Serafin Zurita-Espinoza v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-1817 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1817 SERAFIN ZURITA-ESPINOZA, a/k/a Zurita Serafin Espinoza, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: March 19, 2014 Decided: April 4, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Liza S. Murcia, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Serafin Mexico, Zurita-Espinoza, petitions Immigration for Appeals review a of (Board) an native order dismissing and of citizen of Board of appeal his the of the Immigration Judge s (IJ) decision denying his motion to reopen as untimely. find no We have reviewed the administrative record and abuse of discretion Zurita-Espinoza s motion. We therefore deny reasons stated (B.I.A. May the denial of relief on See 8 C.F.R. ยง 1003.23(b)(1) (2013). the petition for review the by 31, in Board. See In 2013). We further in re: part for the Zurita-Espinoza, find that we lack jurisdiction to review Zurita-Espinoza s claim that the Board erred in upholding the IJ s refusal to invoke the immigration court s sua sponte power to reopen his proceedings. See Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART 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.