Zora Backoulas-Spring v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1144
ZORA BACKOULAS-SPRING,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 23, 2008 Decided: August 29, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric H. Singer, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Gregory G.
Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright,
Assistant Director, Kristin K. Edison, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Zora Backoulas-Spring (“Backoulas”), a native and citizen
of the Republic of Congo, petitions for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”). Backoulas challenges the
Board’s order adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s denial
of a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(c) (2006), and
her ruling that Backoulas’ prior conviction was for a particularly
serious crime under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B) (2006), rendering him
ineligible for withholding from removal. Backoulas argues the
immigration judge used evidence beyond the record supporting his
attempted burglary conviction to make the determinations that he
was dangerous and his conviction was particularly serious. Finding
no legal error, we deny the petition for review.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) (2006), this court
lacks jurisdiction to review any discretionary decision denying
relief, such as the denial of a waiver of inadmissibility or the
determination that a conviction is for a particularly serious
crime. This court does have jurisdiction, however, to review
constitutional claims and questions of law. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(D) (2006).
We have reviewed the issues Backoulas raises with respect
to the standards employed by the immigration judge in determining
Backoulas was dangerous based on his attempted burglary conviction.
We see no error of law, as the correct standard was used. Insofar

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
as the immigration judge found Backoulas’ crime was dangerous, we
lack jurisdiction to review that discretionary decision.
Likewise, we find no error with respect to the standard
the immigration judge used to find Backoulas’ attempted burglary
was a particularly serious crime. We lack jurisdiction to review
the immigration judge’s ultimate, discretionary conclusion.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 3 of 3 --