Murga-Zabala v. Reno

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 13, 2000
• Docket: 00-1091
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

LUIS FERNANDO MURGA-ZABALA, Petitioner,

v. No. 00-1091 JANET RENO; U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A37-222-892)

Submitted: May 19, 2000

Decided: June 13, 2000

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

John T. Riely, Ashton, Maryland, for Petitioner. David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, Earle B. Wilson, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Liti- gation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUS- TICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Luis Fernando Murga-Zabala petitions for review of a final order of deportation issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Murga- Zabala is a resident alien facing deportation based on his conviction of an aggravated felony involving a controlled substance under § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) & (B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, codified at 8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) & (B)(i) (West 1999). Because Murga-Zabala is an alien who was convicted of a deportable criminal offense, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 ("IIRIRA"), divests this court of subject matter jurisdiction over his case. See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (West 1999); Lewis v. INS, 194 F.3d 539, 542-43 (4th Cir. 1999); Hall v. INS , 167 F.3d 852, 854 (4th Cir. 1999) (applying the IIRIRA's transitional rules).

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition. We dispense with oral argu- ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci- sional process.

DISMISSED