David Chavez-Flores v. Loretta Lynch , 669 F. App'x 173 ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1056
DAVID CHAVEZ-FLORES,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-1225
DAVID CHAVEZ-FLORES,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 14, 2016
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petitions dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant
Director, JoAnna L. Watson, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
David Chavez-Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s
decision denying relief from removal, and denying his motion to
reconsider. 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 an
aggravated felony or controlled substance offense. We retain
jurisdiction only over 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).”). This
jurisidictional bar extends to our review of the denial of a
motion to reconsider. Bracamontes v. Holder, 675 F.3d 380, 390
(4th Cir. 2012) (dismissing challenge to motion to reconsider
for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)).
Upon review, we find that the claims raised by
Chavez-Flores are not 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
3
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 petitions 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.
PETITIONS DISMISSED
4