Junior Rafael Vargas GUZMAN, aka Junior Guzman, aka Junior Vargas, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent, 513 F. App'x 113

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner Junior Rafael Vargas Guzman, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, seeks review of the April 12, 2012, decision of the BIA affirming the December 1, 2011, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Steven J. Connelly, denying Vargas Guzman’s fourth request for a continuance and ordering him removed. In re Junior Rafael Vargas Guzman, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Apr. 12, 2012), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. Batavia Dec. 1, 2011).

Vargas Guzman was convicted in state court of attempted robbery in the second degree in May 2001 and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree in April 2005. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. Vargas Guzman sought a continuance in his removal proceedings while awaiting the result of his post-conviction challenge in a collateral state court proceeding. In that proceeding, Vargas Guzman argued, based on Padilla v.

Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), that his 2001 robbery conviction should be overturned because his attorney failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. He argued that if the Supreme Court found Padilla to apply retroactively, his robbery conviction would be overturned, he would no longer be convicted of an aggravated felony, and he would therefore be eligible for cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). The Supreme Court has now ruled, however, that Padilla does not have retroactive effect. Chaidez v.

United States, 586 U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1103, 185 L.Ed.2d 149 (2013) (“We conclude that, under the principle set out in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), Padilla does not have retroactive effect”). Therefore, any constitutional or legal claim that Vargas Guzman might have had based on the purported retroactive effect of Padilla is now moot. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review the final order of removal in this case. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(

C) and (a)(2)(D). We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and conclude they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the Respondent’s motion is GRANTED and the petition for review is DISMISSED.