Syed Musavi v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A073-642-946 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999305353].. [13-1451]

Appeal: 13-1451

Doc: 30

Filed: 02/27/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1451

SYED MUSAVI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted:

February 18, 2014

Decided:

February 27, 2014

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.

Pauline M. Schwartz, THE SCHWARTZ LAW FIRM, LLP, Washington,
D.C., for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
General, Greg D. Mack, Aaron D. Nelson, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1451

Doc: 30

Filed: 02/27/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Syed Musavi petitions for review of an order of the
Board

of

Immigration

Appeals

dismissing

his

appeal

from

the

Immigration Judge’s decision finding him inadmissible pursuant
to

8

U.S.C.

§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(i)
a

waiver

of

(2012)

and

inadmissibility

as

denying
a

his

application

for

matter

discretion.

We have reviewed Musavi’s challenges to the finding

of inadmissibility and conclude that they are without merit.
therefore deny the petition for review in part.

of

We

Next, we find

that we lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of
the waiver of inadmissibility, see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i)(2) (2012),
and that Musavi has raised no colorable constitutional claims or
questions of law over which we would retain jurisdiction.
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012).

See 8

We accordingly deny in part and

dismiss in part 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 IN PART
AND DISMISSED IN PART

2