Opinion
21-1261
08-02-2024
BERNABE VITALINO RAMIREZ-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
Laura Kelsey Rhodes, LAURA KELSEY RHODES, LLC, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Leslie McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel, Aric A. Anderson, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: July 24, 2024
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
ON BRIEF:
Laura Kelsey Rhodes, LAURA KELSEY RHODES, LLC, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner.
Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Leslie McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel, Aric A. Anderson, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WYNN and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Bernabe Vitalino Ramirez-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his motion to reconsider the denial of his second motion to reopen seeking to rescind his in absentia order of removal. We have reviewed the record and the IJ's decision and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the appeal. See Narine v. Holder, 559 F.3d 246, 249 (4th Cir. 2009) (stating standard of review). Ramirez-Ramirez's contention that the IJ did not have authority to order him removed in absentia because the notice to appear did not indicate the time and place for the removal proceedings is without merit. See Cedillos-Cedillos v. Barr, 962 F.3d 817, 823 (4th Cir. 2020) (noting that requirement that notice to appear include time and date of proceedings is not jurisdictional).
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.