Case Name: Mohammad Swailem AWAD, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-30
Citations: 600 F. App'x 892
Docket Number: No. 14-1932
Parties: Mohammad Swailem AWAD, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GREGORY and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 600
Pages: 892–893

Head Matter:
Mohammad Swailem AWAD, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-1932.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 20, 2015.
Decided: April 30, 2015.
W. Rob Heroy, Goodman, Carr PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Keith I. McManus, Senior Litigation Counsel, Matt A. Crapo, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before GREGORY 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Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Mohammad Swailem Awad, a native and citizen of Jordan, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reconsider its affirmance of the Immigration Judge's decision denying Awad's application for adjustment of status as a matter of discretion. We have reviewed the administrative record and Awad's claim that the agency exceeded its authority by improperly questioning him about his marriage, and find his claim to be without merit. We accordingly find no abuse of discretion in the denial of reconsideration, see Narine v. Holder, 559 F.3d 246, 249 (4th Cir.2009), and deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Awad (B.I.A. Aug. 12, 2014). 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 DENIED.
While we normally lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of adjustment of sta tus, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) (2012), we retain jurisdiction here because Awad has raised a question of law in his petition for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012).