Ernest Boadu v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: January 5, 2024
• Docket: 22-2216
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2216 Doc: 32 Filed: 01/05/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-2216

ERNEST BOADU,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: September 19, 2023 Decided: January 5, 2024

Before RICHARDSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy, Assistant Attorney General, Walter Bocchini, Senior Litigation Counsel, William C. Minick, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-2216 Doc: 32 Filed: 01/05/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Ernest Boadu petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(Board) affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application

for special rule cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2). The IJ denied relief

both on the merits and as a matter of discretion. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), we

lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of cancellation of removal unless Boadu

presents colorable legal or constitutional claims pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). See

Gonzalez Galvan v. Garland, 6 F.4th 552, 557-58 (4th Cir. 2021). Upon review, we find

that Boadu’s challenges to the adverse credibility finding and the Board’s affirmance of

the IJ without opinion, and his conclusory claim that the IJ violated his due process rights

by failing to consider the evidence, are either not legal or not colorable and thus do not

qualify for this exception.

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. * We deny

the Attorney General’s motion for summary disposition as moot and 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.

DISMISSED

* Because the discretionary denial of relief is independently dispositive of Boadu’s application for cancellation of removal, we need not reach his arguments on appeal challenging the agency’s alternative merits determination. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”).