Edith Marlene Medrano v. Loretta Lynch


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A094-777-580 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000005314].. [16-1401]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-1401 Doc: 31 Filed: 01/18/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1401 EDITH MARLENE MEDRANO, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: December 29, 2016 Decided: January 18, 2017 Before TRAXLER, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Bernard A. Joseph, Senior Litigation Counsel, Christina J. Martin, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-1401 Doc: 31 Filed: 01/18/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Edith Marlene Medrano, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal of the immigration judge’s oral decision denying her request for a continuance in her removal proceedings and ordering her removed from the United States. We dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. Based on her counseled admissions before the immigration judge, Medrano was found removable on two grounds, including as an inadmissible alien who involving moral turpitude. (2012). had been convicted of a crime See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) 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 involving moral jurisdiction certain turpitude. only questions of law. v. Holder, 667 enumerated over In crimes, this colorable including circumstance, constitutional a we crime retain claims or 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012); see Turkson 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 of law, our review of the issue is not authorized by [8 U.S.C. §] 1252(a)(2)(D).”). Medrano asserts in her brief that the immigration judge violated due continuance. process Upon in adjudicating review, we 2 find her request this claim for is a not Appeal: 16-1401 Doc: 31 sufficiently Filed: 01/18/2017 colorable to Pg: 3 of 3 invoke this court’s jurisdiction. See, e.g., Jian Pan v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 80, 84 (1st Cir. 2007) (“To trigger our jurisdiction, the putative constitutional or legal challenge factual must findings. be The more than a underlying disguised challenge constitutional or to legal question must be colorable; that is, the argument advanced must, at the very Accordingly, jurisdiction. least, we dismiss have the some petition potential for validity.”). review for 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. PETITION DISMISSED 3

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?