Case Name: Estuardo Vinicio Monzon LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-02
Citations: 225 F. App'x 114
Docket Number: No. 06-1710
Parties: Estuardo Vinicio Monzon LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 114–114

Head Matter:
Estuardo Vinicio Monzon LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-1710.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 28, 2007.
Decided: May 2, 2007.
Hilario Mercado, Jr., Mercado Law Firm, PLC, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle E. Latour, Assistant Director, Michele Y.F. Sarko, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part; denied in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Estuardo Vinicio Monzon Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") affirming the immigration judge's discretionary denial of his application for adjustment of status. We lack jurisdiction to review any claim that the Board abused its discretion in affirming the denial of adjustment of status. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(a)(2)(B)® (West 2005). Under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (West 2005), we do have "a narrowly circumscribed jurisdiction to resolve constitutional claims or questions of law raised by aliens seeking discretionary relief." Higuit v. Gonzales, 433 F.3d 417, 419 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,-U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 2973, 165 L.Ed.2d 955 (2006). However, we find no merit in Monzon Lopez's alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. 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 DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.