Oscar Enriques v. Jefferson Sessions III , 699 F. App'x 168 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1376
OSCAR RODRIGUEZ ENRIQUES,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: October 12, 2017 Decided: October 17, 2017
Before WILKINSON, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for
Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Derek C. Julius,
Assistant Director, Regina Byrd, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Oscar Rodriguez Enriques, a native and citizen of Mexico who illegally reentered
the United States after he was deported in 1996, petitions for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s
decision finding that Enriques was convicted of a particularly serious crime and thus
denying his application for withholding of removal. * We have reviewed the argument
raised by Enriques on appeal, in conjunction with the record and the relevant legal
authorities. We discern no legal error in the agency’s conclusion that Enriques’ prior
New York conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance qualified as a
particularly serious crime, see In re Y-L-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 270, 274-76 (Op. Att’y Gen.
2002), which rendered him ineligible for withholding of removal under the Immigration
and Nationality Act, see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii) (2012). Accordingly, although we
grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for review for the reasons
stated by the Board. See In re Rodriguez Enriques (B.I.A. Feb. 22, 2017). 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
*
Enriques does not challenge in his brief the agency’s denial of his application for
deferral of removal. Accordingly, we conclude that Enriques has waived appellate
review of the disposition of that claim. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7
(4th Cir. 2004).
2