Court Opinion

ID: 9403985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 21:01:11.524788+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:10.521348
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2123      Doc: 30         Filed: 06/20/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2123

        ABUBAKARR BUNDU,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: June 15, 2023                                          Decided: June 20, 2023

        Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Robert K. Lacy, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton,
        Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Dawn S. Conrad, Senior Litigation Counsel,
        Rachel P. Berman-Vaporis, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-2123       Doc: 30         Filed: 06/20/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Abubakarr Bundu, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, petitions for review of an

        order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration

        judge’s decision (a) denying Bundu’s applications for cancellation of removal as a matter

        of discretion and, relatedly, to adjust status; and (b) ordering Bundu removed to Sierra

        Leone. In this court, Bundu asserts reversible legal error in the immigration judge’s

        handling of his case and alleges a due process violation. We deny the petition for review.

               Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), entitled “Denials of discretionary relief,” we

        lack “jurisdiction to review . . . any judgment regarding the granting of relief under . . . [8

        U.S.C. §] 1229b,” which governs cancellation of removal. Notwithstanding, we retain

        jurisdiction to decide a challenge to the discretionary denial of cancellation of removal if

        that challenge presents a colorable constitutional claim or question of law that satisfies the

        exception in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (stating that no provision limiting judicial review

        “shall be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law raised

        upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals”). See Gonzalez

        Galvan v. Garland, 6 F.4th 552, 558 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing § 1252(a)(2)(D)).

               We review the agency’s resolution of legal issues de novo, “affording appropriate

        deference to the [Board]’s interpretation of the [Immigration and Nationality Act] and any

        attendant regulations.” Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008).

        “[A]dministrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would

        be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see Salgado-Sosa v.

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2123      Doc: 30         Filed: 06/20/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        Sessions, 882 F.3d 451, 456 (4th Cir. 2018) (recognizing the highly deferential standard of

        review employed for administrative fact findings).

               Upon review of the arguments advanced by Bundu in conjunction with the

        administrative record and the relevant authorities, we concur in the Board’s analysis as to

        the advanced legal errors and due process claim. See In re Bundu (B.I.A. Oct. 3, 2022).

        We therefore deny 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 DENIED

                                                    3