Case Name: Jose Boanerge ZAVALA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr.; Janet Napalitano, Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-29
Citations: 436 F. App'x 276
Docket Number: No. 10-2110
Parties: Jose Boanerge ZAVALA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr.; Janet Napalitano, Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, Respondents.
Judges: Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 436
Pages: 276–277

Head Matter:
Jose Boanerge ZAVALA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr.; Janet Napalitano, Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, Respondents.
No. 10-2110.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 2, 2011.
Decided: June 29, 2011.
Joe W. Nesari, JW Law, P.C., Herndon, Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Lindsay W. Zimliki, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Boanerge Zavala, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge's decision denying, as a matter of discretion, Zavala's application for a waiver under former § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Because Za-vala is an aggravated felon, we lack juris diction to review his order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (2006), except to the extent Zavala raises constitutional claims and questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2006). We have reviewed the administrative record and Zavala's claim that he was denied due process at his removal hearing, and we find that his claim lacks merit. See Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir.2008); Dekoladenu v. Gonzales, 459 F.3d 500, 508 (4th Cir.2006). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Zavala (B.I.A. Sept. 3, 2010). 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.
PETITION DENIED.