UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1310
ERROL ORLANDO GREEN,
Petitioner,
versus
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A43-723-606)
Submitted: October 19, 2007 Decided: December 7, 2007
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Payne, BLAIR & LEE, P.C., College Park, Maryland, for
Petitioner. Greg D. Mack, Senior Litigation Counsel, Robbin K.
Blaya, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Errol Orlando Green, a native and citizen of Jamaica,
petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) affirming the immigration judge’s finding that
Green is removable as an aggravated felon, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (2000), and is ineligible for a § 212(c)
waiver of deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1994) (repealed in
1996).
Under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (West 2005), “we have
no jurisdiction to review a final order of removal of an alien
removable for having committed an aggravated felony.” Ramtulla v.
Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 202, 203 (4th Cir. 2002). However, under 8
U.S.C.A. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (West 2005), we do have jurisdiction over
constitutional claims and questions of law raised by an aggravated
felon. Mbea v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 276, 278 n.1 (4th Cir. 2007)
(finding jurisdiction under § 1252(a)(2)(D) to review aggravated
felon’s claim of entitlement to a cancellation or waiver of
removal).
Green first asserts that the Board erred in finding him
ineligible for a § 212(c) waiver. Our review of the administrative
record and the Board’s decision, however, reveals that the Board
was correct in finding that, at the time of his plea agreement and
subsequent guilty plea to a controlled substance offense in
Maryland state court, Green was not eligible for § 212(c) relief.
- 2 -
This is so because section 440(d) of the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), Pub. L. No. 104-132,
110 Stat. 1214, 1277, enacted on April 24, 1996, rendered aliens
deportable due to convictions for aggravated felonies and certain
other offenses ineligible for § 212(c) relief.* Therefore, Green’s
claim of eligibility for § 212(c) relief fails.
Green also contends that the immigration judge denied him
due process by prejudging his claim of eligibility for § 212(c)
relief. However, our review of the administrative record reveals
that the immigration judge, after stating his understanding of the
applicable statutes and subsequent amendments, allowed the parties
to file legal arguments supported by exhibits before entering a
thoughtful, thorough and correct decision finding Green ineligible
for the § 212(c) waiver. Therefore, Green’s due process claim
fails.
Accordingly, we deny Green’s 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
*
On September 30, 1996, the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”), Pub. L. No. 104-
208, 110 Stat. 3009, was enacted, repealing former § 212(c) in its
entirety.
- 3 -