Opinion
No. 18-2356
09-03-2019
ANTONIO JOSE ZAMBRANO REYES, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Sam H. Hasan, HASAN LAW GROUP, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Leslie McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sam H. Hasan, HASAN LAW GROUP, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Leslie McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Antonio Jose Zambrano Reyes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his motion to reopen and reconsider. We have reviewed the administrative record and Zambrano Reyes' claims and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2019); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review substantially for the reasons stated by the Board. In re Zambrano Reyes (B.I.A. Oct. 11, 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.
Even if we assume that Zambrano Reyes' motion was timely filed under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv) (2012), the Board provided substantive reasoning for denying the motion. Because this reasoning was not "arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law" Mosere, 552 F.3d at 400 (internal quotation marks omitted), we find no abuse of discretion. --------
PETITION DENIED