Paulo Alvarez Oviedo v. Pamela Bondi

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1443 Doc: 15 Filed: 09/02/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1443 PAULO JAVIER ALVAREZ OVIEDO, Petitioner, v. PAMELA JO BONDI, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: August 28, 2025 Decided: September 2, 2025 Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paulo Javier Alvarez Oviedo, Petitioner Pro Se. Madeline Henley, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1443 Doc: 15 Filed: 09/02/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Paulo Javier Alvarez Oviedo, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding the immigration judge’s denial of Alvarez Oviedo’s application for adjustment of status as a matter of discretion. We lack jurisdiction to review this wholly discretionary determination. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Though we retain jurisdiction over colorable constitutional challenges and questions of law, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), no such issues have been raised on appeal, which Alvarez Oviedo instead dedicates to rehashing the relevant facts, see Sorcia v. Holder, 643 F.3d 117, 125 (4th Cir. 2011) (explaining that “a challenge to the weight attributed to certain factors relevant to immigration determinations does not present a question of law”). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. See Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328, 347 (2022) (“Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts found as part of discretionary-relief proceedings under [8 U.S.C.] § 1255 [the statutory provision related to adjustment of status] and the other provisions enumerated in [8 U.S.C.] § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).”). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DISMISSED 2