Michael Gomez v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 459 F. App'x 225 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1410
MICHAEL ANTONIO GOMEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: November 30, 2011 Decided: December 21, 2011
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William J. Kovatch, Jr., Alexandria, Virginia, for Petitioner.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey,
Assistant Director, Eric W. Marsteller, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C.,
for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Antonio Gomez, a native and citizen of
Nicaragua, has petitioned for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals dismissing Gomez’s appeal of the Immigration
Judge’s order declining to continue his case and ordering him
removed from the United States. The Attorney General has moved
to dismiss the petition for review because Gomez has been
convicted of a larceny offense that qualifies as an aggravated
felony and two controlled substance offenses, which subject his
appeal to the jurisdictional bar set forth in 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(C) (2006). We retain jurisdiction, however, to
address any constitutional claims or questions of law. See 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2006).
We have considered Gomez’s claims, including his
contention that he should have been permitted to collaterally
attack his convictions under Padilla v. Kentucky, __ U.S. __,
130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), in immigration court, and find them to
be without merit. See Waugh v. Holder, 642 F.3d 1279, 1283-84
(10th Cir. 2011); In re Madrigal, 21 I. & N. Dec. 323, 327 (BIA
1996).
Accordingly, we grant the Attorney General’s motion to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Gomez’s motion to
expedite as moot and dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED
3