UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2104
ALEJANDRO HERRERA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: September 4, 2015 Decided: September 17, 2015
Before KEENAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
W. Rob Heroy, GOODMAN, CARR PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, Erica
B. Miles, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Alejandro Herrera, a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reconsider the Board’s
order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s order
denying his application for adjustment of status. We dismiss
the petition for review.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (2012), “no court shall
have jurisdiction to review any judgment regarding the granting
of relief under section . . . 1255,” the section governing
applications for adjustment of status. But we do retain
jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and questions of
law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012). “When the Board refuses
to reconsider the discretionary denial of relief under one of
the provisions enumerated in 1252(a)(2)(B)--a decision which is
not subject to review in the first place--the court will not
have jurisdiction to review that same denial merely because it
is dressed as a motion to reconsider.” Jean v. Gonzales, 435
F.3d 475, 481 (4th Cir. 2006).
Herrera’s argument that we have jurisdiction to review the
finding that his false testimony was indicative of a lack of
good moral character lacks merit. The decision to deny Herrera
adjustment of status was clearly a discretionary one, supported
by his false testimony.
2
The denial of adjustment of status was a discretionary
decision, and we are without jurisdiction to review the Board’s
order denying reconsideration of that discretionary decision. *
Jean, 435 F.3d at 481. Accordingly, we dismiss 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 DISMISSED
* Because this conclusion is dispositive of the petition for
review, we need not consider the Board’s other reasons for
denying reconsideration.
3