Capkan v. Ashcroft , 80 F. App'x 822 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-2272
    BERC CAPKAN,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals. (A-41-956-406)
    Submitted:   October 17, 2003          Decided:     November 10, 2003
    Before WIDENER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Michael M. Hadeed, Jr., BECKER, HADEED, KELLOGG & BERRY, P.C.,
    Springfield, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant
    Attorney General, Mark C. Walters, Assistant Director, Deborah N.
    Misir, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNTIED STATES DEPARTMENT
    OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Berc Capkan, a native and citizen of Turkey, petitions for
    review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”)
    affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s denial of his
    waiver application pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4) (2000). This
    section provides that the Attorney General, in his discretion, may
    remove the conditional basis placed upon an alien’s permanent
    resident status (and waive the requirement that the alien and his
    citizen   spouse      jointly    file   a    petition    for    removal   of     the
    conditional basis) upon a showing that the alien’s marriage was
    entered into in good faith.
    Under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (a)(2)(B)(ii) (2000), “[n]otwithstanding
    any other provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction to
    review . . . any . . . decision or action of the Attorney General
    the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in
    the discretion of the Attorney General.” We find that the authority
    to grant a hardship waiver is clearly within the discretion of the
    Attorney General and thus the plain language of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)
    divests   this     court    of    jurisdiction      over       Capkan’s   claims.
    Accordingly,     we   dismiss    the    petition   for   review    for    lack   of
    jurisdiction. 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-2272

Citation Numbers: 80 F. App'x 822

Judges: Duncan, Gregory, Per Curiam, Widener

Filed Date: 11/10/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023