Case Name: Michael Antonio GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-21
Citations: 459 F. App'x 225
Docket Number: No. 11-1410
Parties: Michael Antonio GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 459
Pages: 225–226

Head Matter:
Michael Antonio GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-1410.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 30, 2011.
Decided: Dec. 21, 2011.
William J. Kovatch, Jr., Alexandria, Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, William C. Pea-chey, Assistant Director, Eric W. Marstel-ler, United States Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Antonio Gomez, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, has petitioned for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing Gomez's appeal of the Immigration Judge's order declining to continue his case and ordering him removed from the United States. The Attorney General has moved to dismiss the petition for review because Gomez has been convicted of a larceny offense that qualifies as an aggravated felony and two controlled substance offenses, which subject his appeal to the jurisdictional bar set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (2006). We retain jurisdiction, however, to address any constitutional claims or questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2006).
We have considered Gomez's claims, including his contention that he should have been permitted to collaterally attack his convictions under Padilla v. Kentucky, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), in immigration court, and find them to be without merit. See Waugh v. Holder, 642 F.3d 1279, 1283-84 (10th Cir.2011); In re Madrigal-Calvo, 211. & N. Dec. 323, 327 (BIA 1996).
Accordingly, we grant the Attorney General's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Gomez's motion to expedite as moot and 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.
PETITION DISMISSED.