Achille Charles v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2391
ACHILLE CHARLES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: October 21, 2010 Decided: November 12, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Elizabeth Young,
Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Achille Charles, a native and citizen of Haiti,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s order denying his applications for a waiver under 8
U.S.C. § 1182(i) (2006) and adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1255 (2006). We deny the petition for review.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), “any alien who, by
fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to
procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other
documentation, or admission into the United States or other
benefit provided under this chapter is inadmissible.” Charles
does not challenge the finding that he is inadmissible under
this section. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i)(1), “[t]he Attorney
General may, in the discretion of the Attorney General, waive
[the above section] in the case of an immigrant who is the
spouse, son, or daughter of a United States citizen or of an
alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if it is
established to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the
refusal of admission to the United States of such immigrant
alien would result in extreme hardship to the citizen or
lawfully resident spouse[.]” Under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i)(2), “[n]o
court shall have jurisdiction to review a decision or action of
the Attorney General regarding a waiver under paragraph (1).”

-- 2 of 4 --

3
Similarly, under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), “no court shall
have jurisdiction to review any judgment regarding the granting
of relief under section . . . 1182(i),” except for questions of
law or constitutional claims. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).
Accordingly, this court does not have jurisdiction to
review the immigration judge’s discretionary decision finding
that Charles did not establish it would be an extreme hardship
to his spouse if he were removed to Haiti. See Toby v. Holder,
618 F.3d 96, 2010 WL 3363191, *4 (8th Cir. 2010); Corona-
Mendez v. Holder, 593 F.3d 1143, 1146 (9th Cir. 2010); Emokah v.
Mukasey, 523 F.3d 110, 118-19 (2d Cir. 2008); Said v. Gonzales,
488 F.3d 668, 671 (5th Cir. 2007); see also Okpa v. INS, 266
F.3d 313, 316-17 (4th Cir. 2001) (under IIRIRA’s transitional
rules, this court did not have jurisdiction to review the
discretionary decision that the Petitioner’s spouse would not
suffer an extreme hardship if he were removed).
While Charles is entitled to “an unbiased arbiter who
has not prejudiced [his] claims,” Ahmed v. Gonzales, 398 F.3d
722, 725 (6th Cir. 2005), we find the record does not support
Charles’ allegation that he was denied due process. The record
clearly supports the immigration judge’s adverse credibility
finding.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

-- 3 of 4 --

4
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 4 of 4 --