UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-2272
BERC CAPKAN,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A-41-956-406)
Submitted: October 17, 2003 Decided: November 10, 2003
Before WIDENER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael M. Hadeed, Jr., BECKER, HADEED, KELLOGG & BERRY, P.C.,
Springfield, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant
Attorney General, Mark C. Walters, Assistant Director, Deborah N.
Misir, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNTIED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Berc Capkan, a native and citizen of Turkey, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”)
affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s denial of his
waiver application pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4) (2000). This
section provides that the Attorney General, in his discretion, may
remove the conditional basis placed upon an alien’s permanent
resident status (and waive the requirement that the alien and his
citizen spouse jointly file a petition for removal of the
conditional basis) upon a showing that the alien’s marriage was
entered into in good faith.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) (2000), “[n]otwithstanding
any other provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction to
review . . . any . . . decision or action of the Attorney General
the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in
the discretion of the Attorney General.” We find that the authority
to grant a hardship waiver is clearly within the discretion of the
Attorney General and thus the plain language of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)
divests this court of jurisdiction over Capkan’s claims.
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
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED
2