Abubakarr Bundu v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2123 Doc: 30 Filed: 06/20/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-2123
ABUBAKARR BUNDU,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: June 15, 2023 Decided: June 20, 2023
Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Robert K. Lacy, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton,
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Dawn S. Conrad, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Rachel P. Berman-Vaporis, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2123 Doc: 30 Filed: 06/20/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Abubakarr Bundu, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, petitions for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s decision (a) denying Bundu’s applications for cancellation of removal as a matter
of discretion and, relatedly, to adjust status; and (b) ordering Bundu removed to Sierra
Leone. In this court, Bundu asserts reversible legal error in the immigration judge’s
handling of his case and alleges a due process violation. We deny the petition for review.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), entitled “Denials of discretionary relief,” we
lack “jurisdiction to review . . . any judgment regarding the granting of relief under . . . [8
U.S.C. §] 1229b,” which governs cancellation of removal. Notwithstanding, we retain
jurisdiction to decide a challenge to the discretionary denial of cancellation of removal if
that challenge presents a colorable constitutional claim or question of law that satisfies the
exception in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (stating that no provision limiting judicial review
“shall be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law raised
upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals”). See Gonzalez
Galvan v. Garland, 6 F.4th 552, 558 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing § 1252(a)(2)(D)).
We review the agency’s resolution of legal issues de novo, “affording appropriate
deference to the [Board]’s interpretation of the [Immigration and Nationality Act] and any
attendant regulations.” Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008).
“[A]dministrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would
be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see Salgado-Sosa v.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2123 Doc: 30 Filed: 06/20/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
Sessions, 882 F.3d 451, 456 (4th Cir. 2018) (recognizing the highly deferential standard of
review employed for administrative fact findings).
Upon review of the arguments advanced by Bundu in conjunction with the
administrative record and the relevant authorities, we concur in the Board’s analysis as to
the advanced legal errors and due process claim. See In re Bundu (B.I.A. Oct. 3, 2022).
We therefore deny 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
3