Case Name: Berc CAPKAN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-11-10
Citations: 80 F. App'x 822
Docket Number: No. 02-2272
Parties: Berc CAPKAN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WIDENER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 80
Pages: 822–822

Head Matter:
Berc CAPKAN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-2272.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 17, 2003.
Decided Nov. 10, 2003.
Michael M. Hadeed, Jr., Becker, Ha-deed, Kellogg & Berry, P.C., Springfield, Virginia, for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Mark C. Walters, Assistant Director, Deborah N. Misir, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WIDENER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
Berc Capkan, a native and citizen of Turkey, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge's denial of his waiver application pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4) (2000). This section provides that the Attorney General, in his discretion, may remove the conditional basis placed upon an alien's permanent resident status (and waive the requirement that the alien and his citizen spouse jointly file a petition for removal of the conditional basis) upon a showing that the alien's marriage was entered into in good faith.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) (2000), "[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction to review . any . decision or action of the Attorney General the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General." We find that the authority to grant a hardship waiver is clearly within the discretion of the Attorney General and thus the plain language of § 1252(a) (2) (B) (ii) divests this court of jurisdiction over Capkan's claims. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. 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