UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ALBERT BARRINGTON EDWARDS, 

Petitioner,

v.  No. 03-1101

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of

the United States,

Respondent. 

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A37-301-032)

Submitted: August 28, 2003

Decided: October 17, 2003

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Thomas A. Elliot, Fabienne Chatain, ELLIOT & MAYOCK, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Acting Associate Attorney General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director,

Michael T. Dougherty, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,

D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Albert Barrington Edwards is a native and citizen of Jamaica who

entered the United States as an immigrant in 1982. In 1990, Edwards

was convicted of distribution of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A.

§ 841(a), (b)(1)(C) (West 1999 & Supp. 2003). Although deportation

proceedings were instituted at that time, Edwards received a § 212(c)

waiver. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(c) (West 1999). 

In 1996, Edwards was convicted in Maryland state court of possession of marijuana, and removal proceedings were instituted. In 2002,

the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") affirmed the immigration judge’s order of removal. The Board concluded that Edwards was

subject to removal under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) (West 1999),

as an alien who has been convicted of a controlled substance offense.

Edwards petitions this court for review. 

We lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision. Under 8

U.S.C.A. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (West 1999), appellate courts do not have

jurisdiction to review the final order of removal of an alien who is

removable for having committed certain criminal offenses, including

controlled substance offenses defined in § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). Under

§ 1252(a)(2)(C), we have jurisdiction only to determine the relevant

jurisdictional facts: (1) whether Edwards is an alien; and (2) whether

he is removable for committing a criminal offense listed in

§ 1252(a)(2)(C). Lewis v. INS, 194 F.3d 539, 542-43 (4th Cir. 1999).

Edwards concedes in this case that he is an alien and that he was

convicted for possession of marijuana. Therefore, Edwards is removable under § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), and, under § 1252(a)(2)(C), we are

without jurisdiction to hear his petition. 

Edwards also seeks to challenge the provisions of 8 U.S.C.A.

§ 1182(h) (West 1999) on equal protection grounds. "Even assuming,

2 EDWARDS v. ASHCROFT
without deciding, that our jurisdiction under § 1252(a)(2)(C) includes

review of substantial constitutional challenges . . . this claim does not

present such a substantial issue." Ramtulla v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 202,

203-04 (4th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct.

2577 (2003). Similarly, we conclude that Edwards’s equal protection

challenge to 8 U.S.C.A. § 1229b(c)(6) (West 1999) presents no substantial constitutional issue. 

We deny Edwards’s requests to transfer this petition for review to

a district court as a habeas corpus petition, or to remand the case to

the Board for further proceedings. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED

EDWARDS v. ASHCROFT 3