UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2117
MANUEL RIVAS-BERRIOS; JACINTA CRUZ-BERRIOS,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-1771
MANUEL RIVAS-BERRIOS; JACINTA CRUZ-BERRIOS,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: April 8, 2010 Decided: May 12, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy W. Davis, LAW OFFICE OF TIMOTHY W. DAVIS, LLC,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioners. Tony West, Assistant
Attorney General, Ada E. Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jem
C. Sponzo, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Manuel Rivas-Berrios and Jacinta Cruz-Berrios, natives
and citizens of El Salvador, have filed petitions for review
from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) orders
dismissing the appeal from the immigration judge’s order and
denying their motion to reopen. We deny the petitions for
review.
We note that in their brief the Petitioners do not
assert any challenge against the Board’s order dismissing the
appeal from the immigration judge’s order. Accordingly, this
court will not review that order. See Yousefi v. INS, 260 F.3d
318, 326 (4th Cir. 2001); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d
231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999). By virtue of their brief, the
Petitioners limit review to the Board’s order denying the motion
to reopen.
This court reviews the denial of a motion to reopen
for abuse of discretion. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323
(1992); Sadhvani v. Holder, 596 F.3d 180, 182 (4th Cir. 2009).
Motions to reopen “are disfavored . . . [because] every delay
works to the advantage of the deportable alien who wishes merely
to remain in the United States.” Doherty, 502 U.S. at 323. The
court will reverse the Board’s decision only if it is
“arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.” Sadhvani, 596 F.3d
at 182.
3
Even if the Petitioners are found to have been in
substantial compliance with the requirements under Matter of
Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), we find the Board did
not abuse its discretion in finding they failed to show any
prejudice.
Accordingly, we deny the petitions for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITIONS DENIED
4