Court Opinion

ID: 9882044
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-04 21:01:03.480335+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:37.616501
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1286      Doc: 30         Filed: 10/03/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1286

        JOSE DEL CARMEN REYES-VASQUEZ,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: February 10, 2023                                      Decided: October 3, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: H. Glenn Fogle, Jr., THE FOGLE LAW FIRM, LLC, Atlanta, Georgia, for
        Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad,
        Assistant Director, Julia J. Tyler, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-1286       Doc: 30          Filed: 10/03/2023    Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Jose del Carmen Reyes-Vasquez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for

        review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal

        from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for special rule cancellation of

        removal under § 203 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act

        (NACARA), as a matter of discretion. We grant the Attorney General’s motion to dismiss

        the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.

               The NACARA provides that “[a] determination by the Attorney General as to

        whether an alien satisfies the requirements of [NACARA eligibility] is final and shall not

        be subject to review by any court.” NACARA § 203(a)(1) (Pub. L. No. 105-100, 111 Stat.

        2160, 2197-98) (Limitation on Judicial Review).           Nevertheless, this Court retains

        jurisdiction to review “‘constitutional claims or questions of law.’” De Leon v. Holder,

        761 F.3d 336, 339 (4th Cir. 2014) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)). These questions

        “typically arise from rulings made at the first step of the application process—whether the

        alien proved eligibility for relief. We retain our jurisdiction to review these constitutional

        and legal questions recognizing that the ultimate granting of relief is not a matter of right

        under any circumstances but rather is in all cases a matter of grace to be determined by the

        Attorney General.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Reyes-Vasquez was found eligible for special rule cancellation of removal, but

        relief was denied as a matter of discretion. Reyes-Vasquez does not assert a constitutional

        claim or question of law concerning the Immigration Judge’s discretionary denial. We

        therefore lack jurisdiction to review the Immigration Judge’s decision. We also conclude

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1286         Doc: 30      Filed: 10/03/2023         Pg: 3 of 3

        that the Board did not err by affirming the Immigration Judge’s decision without opinion.

        See Atemnkeng v. Barr, 948 F.3d 231, 239 (4th Cir. 2020) (noting that affirmance without

        opinion does not violate petitioner’s due process rights).

               Accordingly, we grant the Attorney General’s motion to dismiss the petition for

        review. 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

                                                     3