Antonieta Romero-Diaz v. Merrick Garland, No. 22-2155 (4th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-2155 ANTONIETA MARTA ROMERO-DIAZ; W.A.E., Petitioners, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: April 20, 2023 Decided: April 24, 2023 Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Eric H. Kirchman, KIRCHMAN & KIRCHMAN, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioners. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Monica G. Antoun, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Petitioners Antonieta Marta Romero-Diaz and her minor son, W.A.E., natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying Romero-Diaz’s motion for reconsideration of the Board’s prior order affirming the immigration judge’s oral decision denying all forms of relief. Upon review of the record, we discern no abuse of discretion in the Board’s rationale for denying the motion to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2022); Mejia-Velasquez v. Garland, 26 F.4th 193, 205 (4th Cir. 2022) (providing standard of review and explaining that the Board abuses its discretion only if it “acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See In re Romero-Diaz (B.I.A. Oct. 12, 2022). 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.