Luis Fernando Murga-Zabala v. Janet Reno; U.s. Immigration & Naturalization Service

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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.
_________________________________________________________________

-- 1 of 2 --

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
2

-- 2 of 2 --