Edith Medrano v. Loretta Lynch ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1401
EDITH MARLENE MEDRANO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: December 29, 2016 Decided: January 18, 2017
Before TRAXLER, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Bernard A. Joseph, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Christina J. Martin, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Edith Marlene Medrano, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals dismissing her appeal of the immigration judge’s oral
decision denying her request for a continuance in her removal
proceedings and ordering her removed from the United States. We
dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.
Based on her counseled admissions before the immigration
judge, Medrano was found removable on two grounds, including as
an inadmissible alien who had been convicted of a crime
involving moral turpitude. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I)
(2012). Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (2012), we lack
jurisdiction to review the final order of removal of an alien
convicted of certain enumerated crimes, including a crime
involving moral turpitude. In this circumstance, we retain
jurisdiction only over colorable constitutional claims or
questions of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012); see Turkson
v. Holder, 667 F.3d 523, 526–27 (4th Cir. 2012); Gomis v.
Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[A]bsent a colorable
constitutional claim or question of law, our review of the issue
is not authorized by [8 U.S.C. §] 1252(a)(2)(D).”).
Medrano asserts in her brief that the immigration judge
violated due process in adjudicating her request for a
continuance. Upon review, we find this claim is not
2
sufficiently colorable to invoke this court’s jurisdiction.
See, e.g., Jian Pan v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 80, 84 (1st Cir. 2007)
(“To trigger our jurisdiction, the putative constitutional or
legal challenge must be more than a disguised challenge to
factual findings. The underlying constitutional or legal
question must be colorable; that is, the argument advanced must,
at the very least, have some potential validity.”).
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for lack of
jurisdiction. 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 DISMISSED
3