Paulo Alvarez Oviedo v. Pamela Bondi
This text of Paulo Alvarez Oviedo v. Pamela Bondi (Paulo Alvarez Oviedo v. Pamela Bondi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 25-1443 Doc: 15 Filed: 09/02/2025 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1443
PAULO JAVIER ALVAREZ OVIEDO,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA JO BONDI, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: August 28, 2025 Decided: September 2, 2025
Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paulo Javier Alvarez Oviedo, Petitioner Pro Se. Madeline Henley, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1443 Doc: 15 Filed: 09/02/2025 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Paulo Javier Alvarez Oviedo, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding the immigration judge’s denial of
Alvarez Oviedo’s application for adjustment of status as a matter of discretion. We lack
jurisdiction to review this wholly discretionary determination. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
Though we retain jurisdiction over colorable constitutional challenges and questions of
law, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), no such issues have been raised on appeal, which
Alvarez Oviedo instead dedicates to rehashing the relevant facts, see Sorcia v. Holder, 643
F.3d 117, 125 (4th Cir. 2011) (explaining that “a challenge to the weight attributed to certain
factors relevant to immigration determinations does not present a question of law”).
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. See Patel
v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328, 347 (2022) (“Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts
found as part of discretionary-relief proceedings under [8 U.S.C.] § 1255 [the statutory
provision related to adjustment of status] and the other provisions enumerated in [8 U.S.C.]
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).”). 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 DISMISSED
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Paulo Alvarez Oviedo v. Pamela Bondi, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paulo-alvarez-oviedo-v-pamela-bondi-ca4-2025.