UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1940
CARLOS ENRIQUE GUOX PEREZ; JUANA LUCIA CHAJ SARAT,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: June 8, 2010
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aaron R. Caruso, ABOD & CARUSO, LLC, Rockville, Maryland, for
Petitioners. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, David M.
McConnell, Deputy Director, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Carlos Enrique Guox Perez (“Perez”) and his wife,
Juana Lucia Chaj Sarat (collectively “Petitioners”), natives and
citizens of Guatemala, petition this court for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”), dismissing
their appeal from the immigration judge’s order denying their
applications for special rule cancellation of removal under
§ 203 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief
Act (“NACARA”). See Pub. L. No. 105-100, 111 Stat. 2160, 2193-
2201 (1997), amended by Pub. L. No. 105-139, 111 Stat. 2644,
2644-45 (1997) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 8
U.S.C.).
Petitioners assert the Board committed legal error by
failing to review de novo the immigration judge’s order. We
disagree. Petitioners raised only one issue in their appeal to
the Board, and we find that issue is most accurately
characterized as an issue of fact. The Board reviews the
immigration court’s findings of fact for clear error. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i) (2010) (“The Board will not engage in
de novo review of findings of fact determined by an immigration
2
judge.”). We conclude the Board did not err in its adjudication
of Petitioners’ appeal. *
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 the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
*
To the extent that Petitioners’ administrative appeal
could have been construed to assert an issue of law, we note
that, while the Board has the discretion to review legal issues
de novo, it is not obligated to do so. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.1(d)(3)(ii) (2010); see also Pinos-Gonzales v. Mukasey,
519 F.3d 436, 440 (8th Cir. 2008) (rejecting argument that the
Board is required to review legal issues de novo).
3