Victor De Jesus Tineo-James v. Bernal, Assistant Director, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Office of Immigration…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2027
VICTOR DE JESUS TINEO-JAMES,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN D. ASHCROFT, United States Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 04-1185
VICTOR DE JESUS TINEO-JAMES,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN D. ASHCROFT, United States Attorney
General,
Respondent.

-- 1 of 4 --

- 2 -
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A30-143-433)
Submitted: August 30, 2004 Decided: September 30, 2004
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald D. Richey, RONALD D. RICHEY & ASSOCIATES, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Ernesto H. Molina,
Jr., Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 4 --

- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated petitions for review, Victor De
Jesus Tineo-James, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic,
seeks review of two orders from the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“Board”). Tineo-James was convicted in a Maryland state court of
child abuse in violation of Md. Code Ann., Art. 27, § 35(C) (Michie
1999) (repealed 2002). The Board found Tineo-James was not
entitled to relief from removability because he was convicted of an
aggravated felony. Tineo-James filed with the Board a motion to
reconsider, which was denied. Tineo-James filed with this Court
petitions for review from both decisions.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (2000), appellate courts
do not have jurisdiction to review the final order of removal of an
alien who is removable for having committed certain criminal
offenses, including an aggravated felony. Because the Board did
not find Tineo-James was removable for having committed an
aggravated felony, we have jurisdiction over the petitions for
review. See Yousefi v. INS, 260 F.3d 318, 325 (2001); see also
Hernandez-Barrera v. Ashcroft, 373 F.3d 9, 17-20 (1st Cir. 2004).
With respect to relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) (2000)
and 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) (2000), we find the Board’s conclusion that
Tineo-James was convicted of an aggravated felony was supported by
reasonable, substantial, probative evidence on the record and does

-- 3 of 4 --

- 4 -
not compel a different result. See Garcia-Melendez v. Ashcroft, 351
F.3d 657, 661 (5th Cir. 2003).
We further find the Board did not abuse its discretion
denying the motion for reconsideration. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a)
(2004); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Yanez-Popp v.
INS, 998 F.2d 231, 234 (4th Cir. 1993).
We deny the petitions 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.
PETITIONS DENIED

-- 4 of 4 --