Vladimir Zlatanov v. William Barr, No. 18-2464 (4th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2464 VLADIMIR BONCHEV ZLATANOV, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: July 15, 2019 Decided: July 24, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nicolette Glazer, LAW OFFICES OF LARRY R. GLAZER, Century City, California, for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Song Park, Acting Assistant Director, Corey L. Farrell, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Vladimir Bonchev Zlatanov, a native and citizen of Bulgaria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying Zlatanov’s second motion to reopen. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. We conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion by denying reopening based on Zlatanov’s argument that he did not receive adequate notice of the April 10, 2008, hearing or based on changed circumstances. See Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we deny in part the petition for review. We further conclude that we are without jurisdiction to review Zlatanov’s due process claim because he did not raise the issue before the Board. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012); Ramirez v. Sessions, 887 F.3d 693, 700 (4th Cir. 2018) (noting court lacks jurisdiction to review “bases for relief” not raised before the Board). We are also without jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision denying sua sponte reopening. Lawrence v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 198, 206 (4th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, we dismiss in part the petition for review. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. 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 IN PART; 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.
