Diomande v. Gonzales ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2195
YACOUBA DIOMANDE,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A73-547-465)
Submitted: August 29, 2007 Decided: September 13, 2007
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alexandru I. Craciunescu, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS LAW FIRM, PC,
Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant
Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director,
Lindsay L. Chichester, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Yacouba Diomande, a native and citizen of Ivory Coast,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s decision finding him ineligible for adjustment of status
and ordering him removed to Ivory Coast. For the reasons discussed
below, we deny the petition for review.
Diomande first contends that the Board erred in finding
that he was statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status. We
find that, because Diomande’s visa petition was revoked by the
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), he
did not have an immigrant visa immediately available to him and was
therefore statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status under the
plain language of the statute. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)(2)(B)
(2000); Kalezic v. INS, 647 F.2d 920, 922 (9th Cir. 1981) (finding
that petitioner was statutorily ineligible for adjustment because
the petition filed on his behalf had been revoked).
He next argues that the immigration judge had
jurisdiction to review the revocation of his visa petition.
Specifically, he argues that the immigration judge had jurisdiction
pursuant to 8 U.S.C.A. § 1201(i) (West 2005), and this Court’s
recent decision in Perez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 191 (4th
Cir. 2007). Based on our review, however, we find that neither
§ 1201(i) nor our decision in Perez-Vargas vested the immigration
- 2 -
judge with jurisdiction to review the revocation of the visa
petition at issue in this case. To the extent that Diomande claims
that the Board and immigration judge violated his due process
rights by refusing to review the revocation of his visa petition,
we find that Diomande cannot allege a colorable constitutional
violation because he cannot establish that he has a property or
liberty interest at stake. See Dekoladenu v. Gonzales, 459 F.3d
500, 508 (4th Cir. 2006), petition for cert. filed, 75 U.S.L.W.
(Mar. 22, 2007) (No. 06-1285).
Finally, Diomande claims that the Board abused its
discretion in upholding the immigration judge’s denial of his
motion for a continuance. Based on our review of the record, we
find that no abuse of discretion occurred. See Lendo v. Gonzales,
___ F.3d ___, ___, 2007 WL 1982038, *1 (4th Cir. July 10, 2007).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -