David Chavez-Flores v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Petitions dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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