Leonel Solis-Alvarez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A087-484-636. Copies to all parties and the agency. [999358918]. [13-1528]

Appeal: 13-1528

Doc: 47

Filed: 05/20/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1528

LEONEL SOLIS-ALVAREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

April 25, 2014

Before TRAXLER,
Judges.

Chief

Judge,

Decided:

and

DUNCAN

and

May 20, 2014

FLOYD,

Circuit

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Farhad Sethna, LAW OFFICES OF FARHAD SETHNA, Akron, Ohio, for
Petitioner.
Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, AnhThu P. Mai-Windle, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jeffrey R. Meyer,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1528

Doc: 47

Filed: 05/20/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Leonel Solis-Alvarez, a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions

for

review

of

the

Board

of

Immigration

Appeals’

(“Board”) order dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge’s
order denying his application for cancellation of removal.
8 U.S.C. § 1229b (2012).

See

In his brief, the Attorney General

renews his argument that we lack jurisdiction over this petition
for review.
Because cancellation of removal is a form of relief
that lies within the discretion of the Attorney General, “no
court shall have jurisdiction to review any judgment regarding
the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b,” except that
the court of appeals retains the ability to review colorable
“constitutional

claims

petition for review.

or

questions

of

law”

raised

upon

a

See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (a)(2)(D)

(2012); see also Sorcia v. Holder, 643 F.3d 117, 124-25 (4th
Cir. 2011); Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358 (4th Cir. 2009).
Upon review, we agree with the Attorney General that the legal
arguments

and

are

sufficiently

not

jurisdiction
Gonzales,

constitutional

under

489

F.3d

claims

colorable

advanced

as

§ 1252(a)(2)(D).
80,

84

(1st

Cir.

to

by

invoke

See,

e.g.,

2007)

(“To

Solis-Alvarez
this
Jian

court’s
Pan

trigger

v.
our

jurisdiction [over a petition for review under the REAL ID Act],
the

putative

constitutional

or
2

legal

challenge

must

Appeal: 13-1528

Doc: 47

Filed: 05/20/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

be . . . colorable; that is, the argument advanced must, at the
very

least,

Attorney

have

Gen.,

some

482

potential

F.3d

1281,

validity.”);

1284

&

n.2

Arias

(11th

v.

Cir.

U.S.
2007)

(explaining that, “[f]or a constitutional claim to be colorable,
the alleged violation need not be substantial, but the claim
must

have

some

possible

validity”

(internal

quotation

marks

omitted)).
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3