UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2333
DONOVAN ANTHONY DAWKINS,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A74-343-669)
Submitted: June 15, 2005 Decided: July 12, 2005
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Payne, BLAIR & LEE, P.C., College Park, Maryland, for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Richard
M. Evans, Assistant Director, Carolyn M. Piccotti, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Donovan Anthony Dawkins, a native and citizen of Jamaica,
petitions for review of both an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) and the immigration judge, arguing that his due
process rights were violated when neither court considered his
application for voluntary departure. Dawkins concedes removability
under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), but contends that the court
did not properly consider his application for voluntary departure.
We deny the petition.
On May 11, 2005, The REAL ID Act, 119 Stat. § 231 went
into effect, amending 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2) (2000) to add a
subsection (D) that states in pertinent part:
(D) Judicial review of certain legal claims
Nothing in subparagraph (B) or (C), or in any other
provision of this chapter (other than this section) which
limits or eliminates judicial review, shall be construed
as precluding review of constitutional claims or
questions of law raised upon a petition for review filed
with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with
this section.
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2005). Although we have jurisdiction to
consider Dawkins’ claim, we find that it was not properly raised or
pursued before either the immigration judge or the Board. We
therefore find that Dawkins was not entitled to adjudication on the
issue. Accordingly, we deny Dawkins’ petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 2 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -