UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MAXIME GEDEON,
Petitioner,

v.
                                                                    No. 99-1791
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION
SERVICE,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
(A72-348-284)

Submitted: October 8, 1999

Decided: November 18, 1999

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges,
and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, Arlington, Vir-
ginia, for Petitioner. David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney
General, John J. Andre, Senior Litigation Counsel, John S. Hogan,
Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPART-
MENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Maxime Gedeon petitions for review of a final order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal of the Immi-
gration Judge's order denying his application for suspension of depor-
tation. Gedeon contends that the Board abused its discretion in
denying him relief in the form of suspension of deportation when it
determined that he failed to demonstrate extreme hardship, as
required under § 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA),
8 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(1) (1994) (now repealed).

The INS filed a motion to dismiss the petition for review, arguing
that the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to review the
petition. Under transitional rule § 309(c)(4)(E) of the Illegal Immigra-
tion Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA),
Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009, applicable to cases such as this
that were in transition at the time the IIRIRA was passed, there is no
appeal of any discretionary decision under INA § 244. Section 244 is
the suspension of deportation provision formerly codified at 8 U.S.C.
§ 1254(a)(1) and now amended and recodified at 8 U.S.C.A. § 1229b
(West 1999). Section 309(c)(4)(E) precludes judicial review of deter-
minations of extreme hardship for purposes of suspension applica-
tions. Under the language of § 1254(a)(1), the determination of
extreme hardship is committed to the opinion of the Attorney General
and is thus by its own terms a discretionary determination. See Kalaw
v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th Cir. 1997). Further, the limitation
on jurisdiction does not offend the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment. See id.

We therefore grant the Respondent's motion to dismiss 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.

DISMISSED

                    2
