USCA4 Appeal: 22-2069 Doc: 34 Filed: 01/08/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-2069

BRANDON VIANA-ALDANA,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: November 7, 2023 Decided: January 8, 2024

Before WYNN, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Gregory Osakwe, LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY C. OSAKWE LLC, Hartford, Connecticut, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Bernard A. Joseph, Senior Litigation Counsel, Craig W. Kuhn, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-2069 Doc: 34 Filed: 01/08/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Brandon Viana-Aldana, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of

an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration

Judge’s denial of his untimely motion to reopen. We have reviewed the administrative

record and Viana-Aldana’s claims and conclude that the agency did not abuse its discretion

in denying reopening. See Wanrong Lin v. Holder,

(4th Cir. 2014)

(noting that alien’s burden to satisfy the changed country conditions exception “was to

show that country conditions in [El Salvador] were materially different from those

conditions at the time of his original removal proceedings”). To the extent Viana-Aldana

challenges the agency’s denial of his request for sua sponte reopening, see

(b)(1) (2022), we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision, see Lawrence

v. Lynch,

, 206–07 (4th Cir. 2016).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.

See In re Viana-Aldana (B.I.A. Sept. 13, 2022). 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

2