Marlon Ferrufino v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A094-186-073. Copies to all parties and the agency. [999575866]. [14-2173]

Appeal: 14-2173

Doc: 19

Filed: 05/01/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2173

MARLON A. FERRUFINO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

April 17, 2015

Decided:

May 1, 2015

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aaron R. Caruso, ABOD & CARUSO, LLC, Wheaton, Maryland, for
Petitioner. Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General,
Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Keith I. McManus, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2173

Doc: 19

Filed: 05/01/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Marlon A. Ferrufino, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals

(“Board”)

judge’s

order

cancellation
Central

finding
of

he

removal

American

Ferrufino’s

dismissing

adjudicated

under

Rehabilitation

Act,

was

Act

for
the

was

appeal

not

under

Relief

conviction

his

eligible

the

of

1997.

The

for

of

aggravated

immigration

special

Board

found
of

that

and
that

cocaine,

Columbia’s

felony

rule

Adjustment

distribution

District

ineligible for such relief.

the

Nicaraguan

attempted

an

from

Youth

made

him

Because the Board’s decision raises

a question of law, our review is de novo.

Karimi v. Holder, 715

F.3d 561, 566 (4th Cir. 2013).

After reviewing the record,

Ferrufino’s

Board’s

contentions,

and

there was no error of law.
450 (4th Cir. 2012).

the

order,

we

conclude

See Phan v. Holder, 667 F.3d 448,

Accordingly, we deny the petition for

review on the reasoning of the Board.
(B.I.A. Sept. 30, 2014).

See In re Ferrufino,

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

2