Case Name: Marlon A. FERRUFINO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-05-01
Citations: 600 F. App'x 904
Docket Number: No. 14-2173
Parties: Marlon A. FERRUFINO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 600
Pages: 904–905

Head Matter:
Marlon A. FERRUFINO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-2173.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 17, 2015.
Decided: May 1, 2015.
Aaron R. Caruso, Abod & Caruso, LLC, Wheaton, Maryland, for Petitioner. Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Keith I. McManus, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marlon A. Ferrufino, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's order finding he was not eligible for special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997. The Board found that Ferrufino's conviction for attempted distribution of cocaine, adjudicated under the District of Columbia's Youth Rehabilitation Act, was an aggravated felony that made him ineligible for such relief. Because the Board's decision raises a question of law, our review is de novo. Karimi v. Holder, 715 F.3d 561, 566 (4th Cir.2013). After reviewing the record, Ferrufino's contentions, and the Board's order, we conclude there was no error of law. See Phan v. Holder, 667 F.3d 448, 450 (4th Cir.2012). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review on the reasoning of the Board. See In re Ferrufino, (B.I.A. Sept. 30, 2014). 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.