Court Opinion

ID: 9915720
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-06 21:00:43.036076+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:15.787335
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2216      Doc: 32         Filed: 01/05/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2216

        ERNEST BOADU,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: September 19, 2023                                     Decided: January 5, 2024

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

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
        Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy, Assistant Attorney
        General, Walter Bocchini, Senior Litigation Counsel, William C. Minick, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-2216      Doc: 32         Filed: 01/05/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Ernest Boadu petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

        (Board) affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application

        for special rule cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2). The IJ denied relief

        both on the merits and as a matter of discretion. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), we

        lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of cancellation of removal unless Boadu

        presents colorable legal or constitutional claims pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). See

        Gonzalez Galvan v. Garland, 6 F.4th 552, 557-58 (4th Cir. 2021). Upon review, we find

        that Boadu’s challenges to the adverse credibility finding and the Board’s affirmance of

        the IJ without opinion, and his conclusory claim that the IJ violated his due process rights

        by failing to consider the evidence, are either not legal or not colorable and thus do not

        qualify for this exception.

               Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. * We deny

        the Attorney General’s motion for summary disposition as moot and 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.

                                                                                     DISMISSED

               *
                 Because the discretionary denial of relief is independently dispositive of Boadu’s
        application for cancellation of removal, we need not reach his arguments on appeal
        challenging the agency’s alternative merits determination. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429
        U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings
        on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”).

                                                     2