Rosario Priola v. INS, 167 F.3d 852, 854-56 4th Cir. 1999 . Priola nevertheless raises two…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-2228
ROSARIO PRIOLA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, United States Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A20-841-434)
Submitted: October 1, 2003 Decided: October 17, 2003
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas A. Elliot, Fabienne Chatain, ELLIOT & MAYOCK, Washington,
D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
David M. McConnell, Deputy Director, Francesco Isgro, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Rosario Priola, a native and citizen of Italy, petitions for
review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying
his motion to reopen and reconsider. This case is governed by the
transitional rules of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat.
3009. Upon our review, we conclude that we do not have jurisdiction
to consider Priola’s appeal. See IIRIRA § 309(c)(4)(E), (G); Hall
v. INS, 167 F.3d 852, 854-56 (4th Cir. 1999).
Priola nevertheless raises two constitutional challenges on
the grounds of procedural due process and equal protection,
contending that they constitute substantial constitutional
questions not subject to the jurisdictional bar. Assuming, without
deciding, that substantial constitutional questions are indeed
reviewable in the context of a petition for review that is
otherwise barred, we find that Priola’s challenges do not qualify
as such. See Ramtulla v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 202, 203-04 (4th Cir.
2002), cert. denied, U.S. , 123 S. Ct. 2577 (2003).
We accordingly dismiss the petition for review for lack of
jurisdiction. We deny Priola’s request to transfer this petition
to the district court for consideration as a petition under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), and dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --