Lopez v. Gonzales, No. 06-1710 (4th Cir. 2007)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1710 ESTUARDO VINICIO MONZON LOPEZ, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A79-238-897) Submitted: March 28, 2007 Decided: May 2, 2007 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed in part; denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hilario Mercado, Jr., MERCADO LAW FIRM, PLC, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle E. Latour, Assistant Director, Michele Y. F. Sarko, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Estuardo Vinicio Monzon Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) affirming the immigration judge s discretionary denial of his application for adjustment of status. We lack jurisdiction to review any claim that the Board abused its discretion in affirming the denial of adjustment of status. U.S.C.A. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (West 2005). Under 8 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (West 2005), we do have a narrowly circumscribed jurisdiction to resolve constitutional claims or questions of law raised by aliens seeking discretionary relief. Higuit v. Gonzales, 433 F.3d 417, 419 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2973 (2006). However, we find no merit in Monzon Lopez s alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We dispense with oral contentions argument because the facts and legal are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART - 2 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.