Court Opinion

ID: 999887
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:32:24.532306+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:52.975534
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ELSIE MARTIN,
Petitioner,

v.
                                                                     No. 98-2197
U. S. IMMIGRATION &
NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
(A91-940-792)

Submitted: September 21, 1999

Decided: October 5, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Ronald D. Richey, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. David W.
Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General, David M. McConnell,
Assistant Director, James A. Hunolt, Office of Immigration Litiga-
tion, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Elsie Martin appeals a final order of deportation issued
by the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board). Martin is a resident
alien facing deportation due to two theft convictions. The Board
affirmed the decision of the immigration court denying Martin as a
matter of discretion a waiver of inadmissibility under § 212(h) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act. The Board also found that Martin
was ineligible for § 212(h) relief because at least one of her crimes
was classified as an aggravated felony, and § 212(h) relief was no
longer available to aliens who are deportable on the basis of having
been convicted of an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C.A.
§§ 1101(a)(43)(G), 1182(h) (West 1999).

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104-128, 110 Stat. 3009,
§ 309(c)(4)(E) removes the jurisdiction of the Courts of Appeals to
review the discretionary denial of a waiver of inadmissibility under
§ 212(h). See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th Cir. 1997).
Accordingly, although we deny Respondent's motion to dismiss, in
which the INS sought dismissal on other grounds, we nevertheless
dismiss Martin's petition because IIRIRA § 309(c)(4)(E) divests this
court of jurisdiction.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

                    2