# Jorge Galean-Prudente v. Loretta Lynch

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · June 18, 2015 · 606 F. App'x 84

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2809846

## Case

- **Full name:** Jorge Mario GALEAN-PRUDENTE, A/K/A Jorge Mario Galeana Prudente, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent; Jorge Mario Galean-Prudente, A/K/A Jorge Mario Galeana Prudente, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 18, 2015
- **Citations:** 606 F. App'x 84
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** King, Harris, Davis
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2809846

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1663

JORGE MARIO GALEAN-PRUDENTE, a/k/a Jorge Mario Galeana
Prudente,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 14-2343

JORGE MARIO GALEAN-PRUDENTE, a/k/a Jorge Mario Galeana
Prudente,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted: June 1, 2015 Decided: June 18, 2015

Before KING and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petitions denied in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.

Buxton Reed Bailey, BUXTON R. BAILEY, P.C., Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Claire L. Workman, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Rachel Browning, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

In these consolidated appeals, Jorge Mario Galean-Prudente,

a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his

appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his application

for cancellation of removal (No. 14-1663) and for review of the

Board’s order denying his motion to reconsider (No. 14-2343).

We review legal issues de novo, “affording appropriate

deference to the [Board]’s interpretation of the [Immigration

and Nationality Act] and any attendant regulations.” Li Fang

Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008).

Administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the

contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012). We defer to the

Board’s factual findings under the substantial evidence

rule. Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 252 (4th Cir. 2008).

Upon review, we find that the agency properly concluded

that Galean-Prudente knowingly engaged in alien smuggling under

8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E) (2012), which statutorily precluded him

from establishing the requisite good moral character necessary

for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(3)

(2012); Ramos v. Holder, 660 F.3d 200, 203-06 (4th Cir. 2011).

We further conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion

in denying Galean-Prudente’s motion to reconsider the denial of

3
his application for cancellation of removal. We therefore deny

the petitions for review in part for the reasons stated by the

Board. See In re: Galean-Prudente (B.I.A. June 26 & Nov. 12,

2014).

We lack jurisdiction * to review Galean-Prudente’s challenges

to the Board’s refusal to reinstate his grant of voluntary

departure, and therefore dismiss the petitions for review in

part. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f) (2012); 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (2012); Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182,

193 (4th Cir. 2004). In any event, the issue is now moot.

Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(i) (2014), a grant of voluntary

departure automatically terminates upon the filing of a petition

for review.

We dispense with oral argument and deny Galean-Prudente’s

motion to participate in 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.

PETITIONS DENIED IN PART,
DISMISSED IN PART

*
Galean-Prudente does not raise any questions of law or
constitutional issues that would fall within the exception set
forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012).

4

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2809846. Public record. Not legal advice.