UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-2396
RIFAQAT ALI,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A72-379-111)
Submitted: January 16, 2004 Decided: February 12, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James W. DiStefano, James T. Reynolds, PAUL SHEARMAN ALLEN &
ASSOC., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler,
Assistant Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director,
James A. Hunolt, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Rifaqat Ali, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“Board”) affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s denial
of his application for adjustment of status.
Ali first contends that the immigration judge erred in
finding that he lacked credibility and that the denial of relief
was an abuse of discretion. Our review of the immigration judge’s
decision reveals that he denied Ali’s application for adjustment of
status on two independent grounds: (1) Ali’s failure to establish
statutory eligibility for relief; and (2) as a matter of
discretion. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (2000), entitled
“Denials of discretionary relief,” “no court shall have
jurisdiction to review any judgment regarding the granting of
relief under section . . . 1255,” which is the section governing
adjustment of status. Thus, we find that we lack jurisdiction to
review the immigration judge’s discretionary denial of Ali’s
application for adjustment of status. Because the immigration
judge’s discretionary denial was an independent basis for his
decision, we need not address the judge’s separate finding that Ali
failed to establish statutory eligibility for relief.
Ali also contends that he was denied his right to due
process of law when the immigration judge refused to allow him to
present the testimony of two witnesses. Assuming, without
- 2 -
deciding, that this court retains jurisdiction to consider
substantial constitutional challenges, cf. Calcano-Martinez v. INS,
533 U.S. 348, 350 n.2 (2001), we find that Ali does not present
such a substantial issue as he fails to establish prejudice
stemming from the immigration judge’s refusal to allow him to
present additional witnesses. In order to succeed on a procedural
due process claim, an alien must make a showing of prejudice. See
Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324 (4th Cir. 2002); Farrokhi v. INS,
900 F.2d 697, 703 n.7 (4th Cir. 1990).
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 -