Dayana Rivera Guzman v. United States Department of State

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1815 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/28/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1815

DAYANA ITATI RIVERA GUZMAN, by and through their father and next friend, Patrick Rivera; PAULA ANDREA RIVERA BAYAREGUA, by and through their father and next friend, Patrick Rivera; J.M.R.B., a minor child, by and through their father and next friend, Patrick Rivera; M.F.R.M., a minor child, by and through their father and next friend, Patrick Rivera; S.R.R., a minor adopted child, by and through their father and next friend, Patrick Rivera; D.S.R.R., a minor adopted child by and through their father and next friend, Patrick Rivera; J.R.R., a minor adopted child, by and through their father and next friend, Patrick; PATRICK RIVERA, on behalf of his children, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE; PASSPORT OFFICE; MARCO RUBIO, in his official capacity, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, District Judge. (3:25-cv-00338-RCY)

Submitted: January 22, 2026 Decided: January 28, 2026

Before AGEE, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1815 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/28/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

Dayana Itati Rivera Guzman, Paula Andrea Rivera Bayaregua, J.M.R.B., M.F.R.M., S.R.R., D.S.R.R., J.R.R., Patrick Rivera, Appellants Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1815 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/28/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: Patrick Rivera appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action brought on behalf of his seven children. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Rivera’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition (its conclusion that Rivera may not litigate claims in federal court on behalf of his minor children), he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). However, even had Rivera not forfeited appellate review, our review of the record discloses no reversible error. See Myers v. Loudoun Cnty. Pub. Schs., 418 F.3d 395, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding that generally a parent may not proceed pro se on behalf of his or her child). Accordingly, we deny Rivera’s motions for emergency injunctive relief and for oral argument or, in the alternative, summary reversal, and we affirm the district court’s order. Rivera Guzman v. U.S. Dep’t of State, No. 3:25-cv-00338-RCY (E.D. Va. June 10, 2025). 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.

AFFIRMED