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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. .. [16-1401]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
EDITH MARLENE MEDRANO,
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
December 29, 2016
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Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
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.
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
involving moral turpitude.
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
questions of law.
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012); see Turkson
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
Pg: 3 of 3
See, e.g., Jian Pan v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 80, 84 (1st Cir. 2007)
(“To trigger our jurisdiction, the putative constitutional or
question must be colorable; that is, the argument advanced must,
We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
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?