Bernabe Vitalino Ramirez-Ramirez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1261
BERNABE VITALINO RAMIREZ-RAMIREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: July 24, 2024 Decided: August 2, 2024
Before WYNN and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Laura Kelsey Rhodes, LAURA KELSEY RHODES, LLC, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Leslie
McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel, Aric A. Anderson, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Bernabe Vitalino Ramirez-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal
from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to reconsider the denial
of his second motion to reopen seeking to rescind his in absentia order of removal. We
have reviewed the record and the IJ’s decision and conclude that the Board did not abuse
its discretion in dismissing the appeal. See Narine v. Holder, 559 F.3d 246, 249
(4th Cir. 2009) (stating standard of review). Ramirez-Ramirez’s contention that the IJ did
not have authority to order him removed in absentia because the notice to appear did not
indicate the time and place for the removal proceedings is without merit. See Cedillos-
Cedillos v. Barr, 962 F.3d 817, 823 (4th Cir. 2020) (noting that requirement that notice to
appear include time and date of proceedings is not jurisdictional).
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 this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 2 of 2 --