Azucena Aracely Lazo-Gavidia; D.a.l.g. v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-2306
AZUCENA ARACELY LAZO-GAVIDIA; D.A.L.G.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. (S. Ct. No. 23-628)
Submitted: July 26, 2024 Decided: August 20, 2024
Before WYNN and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Herbert Glenn Fogle, Jr., THE FOGLE LAW FIRM, LLC, Atlanta, Georgia,
for Petitioners. Brendan Paul Hogan, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent. ON BRIEF: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Petitioners Azucena Aracely Lazo-Gavidia and her minor son were ordered
removed in absentia. An immigration judge denied their motion to reopen the removal
proceedings and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed their appeal. We granted
their petition, vacated the Board’s order dismissing their appeal, and remanded for further
proceedings. The Government petitioned for a writ of certiorari.
The Supreme Court granted the Government’s petition, vacated our prior decision,
and remanded for reconsideration in light of its recent decision in Campos-Chaves v.
Garland, 144 S. Ct. 1637 (2024). Garland v. Lazo-Gavidia, No. 23-628, 2024 WL
3089495, at *1 (U.S. June 24, 2024).
The Supreme Court’s decision in Campos-Chaves forecloses the reasoning we
applied in our prior decision, and we find no alternative basis that would support granting
the petition. 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 --