Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. Gonzales
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
SEGUNDO WALTER GONZALEZ-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A72-170-975)
February 7, 2007
February 27, 2007
Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frederic W. Schwartz, Jr., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Kristin K. Edison, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Segundo Walter Gonzalez-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Ecuador, petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the immigration judge's
discretionary denial of his application for adjustment of status of nonimmigrant to that of a person admitted for permanent residence. We have considered Gonzalez-Gonzalez's challenge to the discretionary denial of his application for adjustment of status and conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review it. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1255(a) (2000) (governing adjustment of status applications); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (2000) ("[N]o court shall have
jurisdiction to review any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1255 [the section governing adjustment of status]); Velasquez-Gabriel v. Crocetti, 263 F.3d 102, 104 n.1 (4th Cir. 2001). We accordingly dismiss the petition for review. Gonzalez-Gonzalez's motion for stay of removal. oral argument because the facts and legal We deny
We dispense with contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
- 2 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?