Francisca Gramajo v. Eric Holder, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1347
FRANCISCA DORA RODRIGUEZ GRAMAJO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: September 2, 2011 Decided: September 13, 2011
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aaron R. Caruso, ABOD & CARUSO, LLC, Rockville, Maryland, for
Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, David V.
Bernal, Assistant Director, Yedidya Cohen, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Francisca Dora Rodriguez Gramajo, a native and citizen
of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the
immigration judge’s order denying her application for special
rule cancellation of removal under § 203 of the Nicaraguan
Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”) (Pub. L.
No. 105-100, 111 Stat. 2160). Because we are without
jurisdiction, we deny the petition for review.
Under § 203 of the NACARA, a Guatemalan may be
eligible for cancellation of removal if she entered the United
States on or before October 1, 1990, and registered for benefits
pursuant to the settlement agreement reached in American Baptist
Churches v. Thornburgh, 760 F. Supp. 796 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (“ABC”
benefits) on or before December 31, 1991.
Under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104-208,
§ 309(c)(5)(C)(ii), 110 Stat. 3009 (1996), as amended by NACARA
§ 203(a)(1), “[a] determination by the Attorney General as to
whether an alien satisfies the requirements of this clause (i)
is final and shall not be subject to review by any court.” See
Lanuza v. Holder, 597 F.3d 970, 971 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding
court lacked jurisdiction to review Board’s order affirming the
immigration judge’s order pretermitting applications for special
2
rule cancellation under NACARA). Whether an alien “registered
for ABC benefits in a timely manner is a purely factual question
over which this court lack’s jurisdiction.” Jerez v. Holder,
625 F.3d 1058, 1069 (8th Cir. 2010). Thus, we conclude this
court does not have jurisdiction to review the finding that
Gramajo did not submit an application for ABC benefits prior to
December 31, 1991.
While we retain jurisdiction to review constitutional
claims and questions of law, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)
(2006), Frech v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 491 F.3d 1277, 1280 (11th Cir.
2007), Gramajo’s brief is simply a challenge to the adverse
credibility finding and the Board’s review of that finding. She
does not raise a constitutional claim or a question of law.
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