Rosendo Jose Juan-Gonzalez v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-1935
ROSENDO JOSE JUAN-GONZALEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: February 2, 2021 Decided: February 10, 2021
Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rosendo Jose Juan-Gonzalez, Petitioner Pro Se. Jessica R. Lesnau, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Rosendo Jose Juan-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review
of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) summarily dismissing his appeal
from the immigration judge’s decision pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(G) (2020)
(providing for summary dismissal by a single Board member where “[t]he appeal is
untimely, or barred by an affirmative waiver of the right of appeal that is clear on the
record”). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See
4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Juan-Gonzalez does not challenge the Board’s finding that he
waived appeal of the immigration judge’s decision, he has forfeited appellate review of the
Board’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.”). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We also deny the
Attorney General’s motion to transfer the case to the Fifth Circuit.* 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
* Because the immigration judge completed the proceedings in Jena, Louisiana,
venue lies in the Fifth Circuit. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2). We nonetheless decline to
exercise our inherent authority to transfer the petition, see Sorcia v. Holder, 643 F.3d 117,
122 (4th Cir. 2011), on the ground that it would not be in the interest of justice to do so,
see Moreno-Bravo v. Gonzales, 463 F.3d 253, 263 (2d Cir. 2006) (“Whether or not the suit
has any possible merit bears significantly on whether the court should transfer, and if it
does not, the court should not waste the time of another court by transferring it.” (alterations
and internal quotation marks omitted)).

-- 2 of 2 --