Emmanuel Obita v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 491 F. App'x 414 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2019
EMMANUEL OBITA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: December 20, 2012
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Emmanuel Obita, Petitioner Pro Se. Kiley L. Kane, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Emmanuel Obita, a native and citizen of Sudan, 1
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s denial of his request for deferral of removal under the
Convention Against Torture. For the reasons discussed below, we
dismiss the petition for review.
Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (2006), we lack
jurisdiction, except as provided in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)
(2006), to review the final order of removal of an alien who is
removable for having been convicted of certain enumerated
crimes, including an aggravated felony. Under § 1252(a)(2)(C),
we retain jurisdiction “to review factual determinations that
trigger the jurisdiction-stripping provision, such as whether
[Obita] [i]s an alien and whether []he has been convicted of an
aggravated felony.” Ramtulla v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 202, 203
(4th Cir. 2002). Once we confirm these two factual
determinations, then, under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D), we
can only consider “constitutional claims or questions of law.”
§ 1252(a)(2)(D); see Turkson v. Holder, 667 F.3d 523, 527 (4th
Cir. 2012).
1
Obita is actually from Juba, which is the capital of South
Sudan. South Sudan became an independent state on July 9, 2011.
2
Because Obita has conceded that he is a native and
citizen of Sudan and that he has been convicted of a criminal
offense that qualifies as an aggravated felony, see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(43)(G) (2006) (defining aggravated felony as including
“a theft offense (including receipt of stolen property) or
burglary offense for which the term of imprisonment [is] at
least one year”), we find that § 1252(a)(2)(C) divests us of
jurisdiction over the petition for review. 2 We therefore deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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.
PETITION DISMISSED
2
Obita does not raise any questions of law or
constitutional issues that would fall within the exception set
forth in § 1252(a)(2)(D).
3