USCA4 Appeal: 23-1771 Doc: 19 Filed: 02/29/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1771

CLODOALDO E. CARRANZA RIVERA,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted: February 27, 2024 Decided: February 29, 2024

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Eric H. Kirchman, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Sabatino F. Leo, Assistant Director, Corey L. Farrell, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1771 Doc: 19 Filed: 02/29/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Clodoaldo E. Carranza Rivera, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying Carranza Rivera’s motion

for reconsideration of the Board’s prior order affirming the immigration judge’s denial of

Carranza Rivera’s application for cancellation of removal. Upon review of the record, we

discern no abuse of discretion in the Board’s rationale for denying the motion to reconsider.

See

(a), (b)(1); Mejia-Velasquez v. Garland,

, 205 (4th Cir.

2022) (providing standard of review and explaining that the Board abuses its discretion

only if it “acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law” (internal quotation marks

omitted)). Specifically, the Board’s order reflects its evaluation of the arguments Carranza

Rivera asserted in his motion for reconsideration, which were accurately characterized as

a rehash of the arguments raised and rejected in Carranza Rivera’s initial administrative

appeal. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See In re Carranza Rivera (B.I.A.

June 27, 2023).

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