Opinion
20-2306
08-20-2024
AZUCENA ARACELY LAZO-GAVIDIA; D.A.L.G., Petitioners, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
Herbert Glenn Fogle, Jr., THE FOGLE LAW FIRM, LLC, Atlanta, Georgia, for Petitioners. Brendan Paul Hogan, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: July 26, 2024
On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. (S.Ct. No. 23-628)
ARGUED:
Herbert Glenn Fogle, Jr., THE FOGLE LAW FIRM, LLC, Atlanta, Georgia, for Petitioners.
Brendan Paul Hogan, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
ON BRIEF:
Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WYNN and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners Azucena Aracely Lazo-Gavidia and her minor son were ordered removed in absentia. An immigration judge denied their motion to reopen the removal proceedings and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed their appeal. We granted their petition, vacated the Board's order dismissing their appeal, and remanded for further proceedings. The Government petitioned for a writ of certiorari.
The Supreme Court granted the Government's petition, vacated our prior decision, and remanded for reconsideration in light of its recent decision in Campos-Chaves v. Garland, 144 S.Ct. 1637 (2024). Garland v. Lazo-Gavidia, No. 23-628, 2024 WL 3089495, at *1 (U.S. June 24, 2024).
The Supreme Court's decision in Campos-Chaves forecloses the reasoning we applied in our prior decision, and we find no alternative basis that would support granting the petition. Accordingly, we deny 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.