Edith Marlene Medrano v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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

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UNPUBLISHED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Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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