Court Opinion

ID: 9381820
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-23 21:01:22.426632+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:34.679458
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1688      Doc: 18         Filed: 03/22/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1688

        MOISES JAVIER LOPEZ,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

        On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

        Submitted: February 17, 2023                                      Decided: March 22, 2023

        Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Abdoul A. Konare, KONARE LAW, Frederick, Maryland, for Petitioner.
        Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jessica A. Dawgert, Senior
        Litigation Counsel, Jeffrey M. Hartman, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division,
        UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1688      Doc: 18         Filed: 03/22/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Moises Javier Lopez, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions for review of an

        order of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding the Immigration Judge’s denial of

        his application for adjustment of status as a matter of discretion. We lack jurisdiction to

        review this wholly discretionary determination. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Though we

        retain jurisdiction over colorable constitutional challenges and questions of law, no such

        issues have been raised on appeal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see Gomis v. Holder, 571

        F.3d 353, 358 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for lack of

        jurisdiction. See In re Lopez (B.I.A. June 9, 2022). 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 DISMISSED

                                                     2