UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2295
DIAA SAMIR YOUSSEF,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 16, 2015 Decided: July 29, 2015
Before MOTZ, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Jeremy L. McKinney, MCKINNEY IMMIGRATION LAW, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant
Director, Manuel A. Palau, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Diaa Samir Youssef, a native and citizen of Egypt,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s (IJ) order denying his application for adjustment of
status as a matter of discretion. We deny the petition for
review.
When the Board adopts and affirms the IJ’s decision, as in
this case, and supplements it with its own opinion, we review
both decisions. Cordova v. Holder, 759 F.3d 332, 337 (4th Cir.
2014). We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary grant
or denial of an adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (2012). However, we retain jurisdiction to
review constitutional claims and questions of law. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012).
Insofar as Youssef claims that the IJ erred as a matter of
law by considering the bona fides of his marriage, we conclude
there was no error. When deciding an application for adjustment
of status, the IJ may consider equities in the applicant’s favor
and adverse factors. See Matter of Arai, 13 I. & N. Dec. 494,
495–96 (B.I.A. 1970). Thus, the IJ did not err in considering
favorable and adverse factors concerning the bona fides of his
marriage. See Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871, 879 n.2 (9th Cir.
2002). We further conclude that the Board specifically disposed
2
of Youssef’s claim that he was denied due process and a fair
hearing. (J.A. at 5). To the extent that Youssef challenges
the discretionary denial of adjustment of status, we are without
jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DENIED IN PART
AND DISMISSED IN PART
3