Lopez v. Gonzales

Filing 920070502


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1710 ESTUARDO VINICIO MONZON LOPEZ, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A79-238-897) Submitted: March 28, 2007 Decided: May 2, 2007 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed in part; denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hilario Mercado, Jr., MERCADO LAW FIRM, PLC, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle E. Latour, Assistant Director, Michele Y. F. Sarko, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Estuardo Vinicio Monzon Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") affirming the immigration judge's discretionary denial of his application for adjustment of status. We lack jurisdiction to review any claim that the Board abused its discretion in affirming the denial of adjustment of status. U.S.C.A. 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (West 2005). Under 8 8 U.S.C.A. 1252(a)(2)(D) (West 2005), we do have "a narrowly circumscribed jurisdiction to resolve constitutional claims or questions of law raised by aliens seeking discretionary relief." Higuit v. Gonzales, 433 F.3d 417, 419 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2973 (2006). However, we find no merit in Monzon Lopez's alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. oral argument because the facts and legal We dispense with contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART - 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?