
    Victor DE JESUS TINEO-JAMES, Petitioner, v. John D. ASHCROFT, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-2027, 04-1185.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 30, 2004.
    Decided: Sept. 30, 2004.
    
      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.
    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   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”). TineoJames 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 Code Ann., Art. 27, § 35(C) (Michie 1999) (repealed 2002).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 TineoJames 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 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, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (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  