Filed: Feb. 27, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1451 SYED MUSAVI, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 18, 2014 Decided: February 27, 2014 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pauline M. Schwartz, THE SCHWARTZ LAW FIRM, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1451 SYED MUSAVI, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 18, 2014 Decided: February 27, 2014 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pauline M. Schwartz, THE SCHWARTZ LAW FIRM, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1451
SYED MUSAVI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: February 18, 2014 Decided: February 27, 2014
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Pauline M. Schwartz, THE SCHWARTZ LAW FIRM, LLP, Washington,
D.C., for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
General, Greg D. Mack, Aaron D. Nelson, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Syed Musavi petitions for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the
Immigration Judge’s decision finding him inadmissible pursuant
to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) (2012) and denying his
application for a waiver of inadmissibility as a matter of
discretion. We have reviewed Musavi’s challenges to the finding
of inadmissibility and conclude that they are without merit. We
therefore deny the petition for review in part. Next, we find
that we lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of
the waiver of inadmissibility, see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i)(2) (2012),
and that Musavi has raised no colorable constitutional claims or
questions of law over which we would retain jurisdiction. See 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012). We accordingly 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
2