UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1543
JOSE SANTOS-AMAYA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: October 22, 2013 Decided: October 25, 2013
Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
General, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Jennifer Paisner
Williams, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jose Santos-Amaya, a native and citizen of El
Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s order directing that he be removed to El
Salvador. Santos-Amaya contends that it was an error to deny
his motion to administratively close proceedings until 2018,
when he would have established ten years’ continuous presence in
accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66(c)(1)-(4) (2013) for the
purpose of being prima facie eligible for relief under the
Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act
(“NACARA”), Pub. L. No. 105-100, 111 Stat. 2160 (1997). We deny
the petition for review.
We review the decision to deny a motion to
administratively close a case for abuse of discretion. Garza-
Moreno v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 239, 242 (6th Cir. 2007). The
Board abuses its discretion when it “fails to offer a reasoned
explanation for its decision, [or] distorts or disregards
important aspects of the alien’s claim.” Jian Tao Lin v.
Holder, 611 F.3d 228, 235 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation
marks omitted). We conclude that the Board and the immigration
judge gave due consideration to the factors stated in Matter of
Avetisyan, 25 I. & N. Dec. 688, 696 (B.I.A. 2012). We also
2
conclude that Santos-Amaya was not denied an opportunity to be
heard on this issue. *
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
*
The Attorney General contends that this court does not
have jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion for
administrative closure because the decision to deny the motion
was within the Board’s and the immigration judge’s unfettered
discretion. While this is an open question, we conclude that in
this instance there exists a judicially manageable standard of
review. See Vahora v. Holder, 626 F.3d 907, 917-18 (7th Cir.
2007).
3