Filed: Apr. 04, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 05-2724 _ Xiong Huang, * * Petitioner, * * Petition for Review of a Final v. * Decision of the Board of * Immigration Appeals. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General * of the United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Respondent. * _ Submitted: February 16, 2007 Filed: April 4, 2007 _ Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Xiong Huang, a native and citizen of China, petitioned for asylum. The Immigration Judge (IJ) d
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 05-2724 _ Xiong Huang, * * Petitioner, * * Petition for Review of a Final v. * Decision of the Board of * Immigration Appeals. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General * of the United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Respondent. * _ Submitted: February 16, 2007 Filed: April 4, 2007 _ Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Xiong Huang, a native and citizen of China, petitioned for asylum. The Immigration Judge (IJ) de..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 05-2724
___________
Xiong Huang, *
*
Petitioner, *
* Petition for Review of a Final
v. * Decision of the Board of
* Immigration Appeals.
Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General *
of the United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Respondent. *
___________
Submitted: February 16, 2007
Filed: April 4, 2007
___________
Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Xiong Huang, a native and citizen of China, petitioned for asylum. The
Immigration Judge (IJ) denied his asylum petition. The Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA) affirmed. Huang now seeks review. We deny the petition for review.
Huang entered the United States illegally. He originally petitioned for asylum
in 1994. After obtaining new counsel, he filed a second petition in 1998, requesting
an adjustment of status based upon his recent marriage to a naturalized American
citizen. The second asylum petition also claimed that Huang would be persecuted if
returned to China because he opposed the nation's one-child policy. The IJ found that
Huang's persecution claim lacked credibility. The IJ also refused to grant Huang the
adjustment of status and denied his petition for asylum.
Huang appeals, challenging only the IJ's refusal to grant him an adjustment of
status. Adjustment of status is entirely within the discretion of the Attorney General.
Alvarez-Portillo v. Ashcroft,
280 F.3d 858, 862 (8th Cir. 2002); 8 U.S.C. § 1255.
Congress has stripped the courts of jurisdiction to review decisions executed pursuant
to that discretion. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) ("[N]o court shall have jurisdiction to
review . . . any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1255 of this
title . . . "); Grass v. Gonzales,
418 F.3d 876, 878 (8th Cir. 2005). Because we lack
jurisdiction to review the Attorney General's discretionary decision to deny an
adjustment of status, Huang's petition is dismissed.
______________________________
-2-