David Chavez-Flores v. Loretta Lynch


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A095-538-430 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999947310].. [16-1056, 16-1225]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-1056 Doc: 30 Filed: 10/14/2016 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1056 DAVID CHAVEZ-FLORES, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 16-1225 DAVID CHAVEZ-FLORES, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 14, 2016 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Petitions dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Appeal: 16-1056 Doc: 30 Filed: 10/14/2016 Pg: 2 of 4 Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director, JoAnna L. Watson, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 16-1056 Doc: 30 Filed: 10/14/2016 Pg: 3 of 4 PER CURIAM: David petitions Appeals Chavez-Flores, for review dismissing of a native of appeal his orders and of citizen the Board the of of Mexico, Immigration Immigration Judge’s decision denying relief from removal, and denying his motion to reconsider. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (2012), we lack jurisdiction to review the final order of removal of an alien convicted of certain enumerated crimes, including aggravated felony or controlled substance offense. jurisdiction law. only over constitutional claims or an We retain questions of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012); see Turkson v. Holder, 667 F.3d 523, 526-27 (4th Cir. 2012); Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[A]bsent a colorable constitutional claim or question authorized by of law, [8 our U.S.C. review of the issue is §] 1252(a)(2)(D).”). not This jurisidictional bar extends to our review of the denial of a motion to reconsider. Bracamontes v. Holder, 675 F.3d 380, 390 (4th Cir. 2012) (dismissing challenge to motion to reconsider for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)). Upon review, Chavez-Flores are we not court’s jurisdiction. 80, 84 (1st Cir. find that sufficiently the claims colorable to raised invoke by this See, e.g., Jian Pan v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 2007) (“To trigger our jurisdiction, the putative constitutional or legal challenge must be more than a 3 Appeal: 16-1056 Doc: 30 disguised Filed: 10/14/2016 challenge to Pg: 4 of 4 factual findings. The underlying constitutional or legal question must be colorable; that is, the argument advanced must, at the very least, have some potential validity.”). Accordingly, we dismiss the petitions for review for jurisdiction. lack of 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. PETITIONS DISMISSED 4

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?