Case: 18-12893 Date Filed: 02/01/2019 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-12893
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A216-171-749
CARLOS POSADAS PAGUADA,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(February 1, 2019)
Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 18-12893 Date Filed: 02/01/2019 Page: 2 of 5
Carlos Posadas Paguada is a native and citizen of Honduras who fears
persecution by gang members if he is returned to his home country. He claims that
one of his sisters was raped by gang members in Honduras, another sister was
kidnapped and beaten, and his family was threatened by the perpetrators of both
incidents.
The government initiated proceedings to remove Posadas Paguada from the
United States in 2017. Among other grounds, the government alleged that he was
subject to removal under
8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) because he had been
convicted of a controlled-substance offense. Posadas Paguada, who was represented
by counsel, conceded removability as charged and then, seeking to prevent his
removal, filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). An immigration judge (“IJ”) denied these
applications after hearing testimony from Posadas Paguada and one of his sisters,
and the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision on appeal. So Posadas Paguada was ordered
removed to Honduras.
Posadas Paguada now petitions this Court for review of the denial of his
applications for withholding of removal and CAT relief. He contends that the IJ
erred in finding his sister’s testimony not credible and that the evidence established
persecution based on his membership in a particular social group. He also argues
2
Case: 18-12893 Date Filed: 02/01/2019 Page: 3 of 5
that he is eligible for CAT relief because he has shown that the Honduran
government would not protect him from persecution.
The government filed a motion to dismiss Posadas Paguada’s petition for lack
of jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), which deprives courts of jurisdiction
to review removal orders that are based on certain criminal offenses, including
controlled-substance offenses. Posadas Paguada has not responded to the
government’s motion.
Before we can address Posadas Paguada’s arguments on the merits, we first
must ensure we have jurisdiction to do so. We review our subject-matter jurisdiction
de novo. Alvarado v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
610 F.3d 1311, 1314 (11th Cir. 2010).
Our jurisdiction to review immigration removal orders is limited by statute.
See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2). As relevant here, § 1252(a)(2)(C) provides that “no court
shall have jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who is
removable by reason of having committed a criminal offense covered in section
1182(a)(2),” including an offense “relating to a controlled substance” under
§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). Notwithstanding this jurisdictional bar, we retain jurisdiction
to review “constitutional claims or questions of law” raised in a petition for review.
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).
Here, § 1252(a)(2)(C)’s jurisdictional bar applies because Posadas Paguada
conceded removability by reason of having committed a violation of a law relating
3
Case: 18-12893 Date Filed: 02/01/2019 Page: 4 of 5
to a controlled substance under § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). Specifically, Posadas
Paguada conceded that he was removable by reason of a conviction for possession
of cocaine, in violation of
Fla. Stat. § 893.13(6)(a). While “we retain jurisdiction to
determine whether the statutory conditions for limiting judicial review exist,”
Alvarez Acosta v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
524 F.3d 1191, 1196 (11th Cir. 2008), Posadas
Paguada does not dispute that he was convicted of an offense “relating to a controlled
substance” under § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II).
Nor does Posadas Paguada offer any other “constitutional claim or question
of law” under § 1252(a)(2)(D). That provision does not permit review of “the
administrative fact findings of the IJ or the BIA as to the sufficiency of the alien’s
evidence and the likelihood that the alien will be [persecuted or] tortured if returned
to the country in question.” Singh v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
561 F.3d 1275, 1280 (11th Cir.
2009); Cole v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
712 F.3d 517, 534 (11th Cir. 2013) (factual findings
regarding the likelihood of future harm and challenges to “the weight and
significance given to various pieces of evidence” are unreviewable under
§ 1252(a)(2)(D)). Nor may we review a challenge to the factual grounds on which
an adverse credibility determination was based. See Fynn v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
752
F.3d 1250, 1253 (11th Cir. 2014) (challenges to the “the agency’s credibility
determination and the relative weight accorded to the evidence” are not legal
questions under § 1252(a)(2)(D)). We retain jurisdiction to review whether an
4
Case: 18-12893 Date Filed: 02/01/2019 Page: 5 of 5
undisputed fact pattern amounts as a matter of law to torture or persecution. See
Singh,
561 F.3d at 1280.
Posadas Paguada’s arguments are not of the sort that we have jurisdiction to
review as constitutional claims or questions of law. Posadas Paguada challenges the
agency’s findings that his sister’s testimony was not credible and that he did not face
a clear probability of harm in Honduras, asserting that the agency failed either to
consider certain evidence or to give it proper weight. Because these arguments relate
to the weight and significance given to the evidence and the likelihood that Posadas
Paguada will be persecuted or tortured if returned to Honduras, we lack jurisdiction
over his petition for review. See Fynn, 752 F.3d at 1253; Cole, 712 F.3d at 534;
Singh,
561 F.3d at 1280. Accordingly, we grant the government’s motion and
dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
PETITION DISMISSED.
5
