Alfonso Hernandez Pantoja v. Matthew Whitaker, No. 18-1340 (4th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1340 ALFONSO HERNANDEZ PANTOJA, Petitioner, v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: November 20, 2018 Decided: November 29, 2018 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Georgeanna M. Gardner, GARDNER LAW, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Claire L. Workman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Roseanne M. Perry, Civil Division, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Alfonso Hernandez Pantoja, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. Pantoja asserts that the Board erred in finding that he failed to meaningfully challenge the denial of voluntary departure in his appeal from the Immigration Judge. Upon review, we find no error in the Board’s application of its procedural waiver rule. See Pinos-Gonzalez v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 436, 440-41 (8th Cir. 2008) (finding no error in Board’s application of procedural waiver to petitioner). We further find Pantoja’s claim that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction over his case to be without merit. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See In re Pantoja (B.I.A. Feb. 26, 2018). 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 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.
