UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1066
SHAHID AFZAAL MALIK,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-1562
SHAHID AFZAAL MALIK,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A93-279-949)
Submitted: November 30, 2006 Decided: January 3, 2007
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petitions dismissed in part; denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Shanta Ramson, RAMSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Burtonsville, Maryland,
for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M.
Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration
Litigation, Francesca U. Tamami, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Shahid Afzaal Malik, a
native and citizen of Pakistan, seeks to challenge two decisions of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board). In No. 06-1066, Malik
challenges the Board’s order finding that the immigration judge did
not err in denying his applications for a waiver of inadmissibility
under § 212(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(I) (2000), and for adjustment of status. We lack
jurisdiction to review any claim that the Board abused its
discretion in affirming the denial of a § 212(I) waiver, Okpa v.
INS, 266 F.3d 313, 317 (4th Cir. 2001), and the subsequent denial
of adjustment of status. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(I) (West
2005). Under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (West 2005), we do have “a
narrowly circumscribed jurisdiction to resolve constitutional
claims or questions of law raised by aliens seeking discretionary
relief.” Higuit v. Gonzales, 433 F.3d 417, 419 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 126 S. Ct. 2973 (2006). However, we find no merit in
Malik’s alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights.
In No. 06-1562, Malik petitions for review of a decision
of the Board denying his motion to reopen and reconsider the
Board’s initial order. To the extent Malik seeks review of the
Board’s reconsideration of its discretionary denial of relief under
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(I), we have no jurisdiction to review that denial
“dressed up as a motion to reconsider.” Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d
- 3 -
475, 481 (4th Cir. 2006). As to the Board’s application of its
general precedent and regulations concerning motions to reopen and
reconsider, we hold that the Board did not abuse its discretion in
denying Malik’s motion to reopen and reconsider. See INS v.
Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2006).
Accordingly, we dismiss the petitions for review in part
for lack of jurisdiction, and deny them in part. 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.
PETITIONS DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART
- 4 -