Melvin Campos v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1941
MELVIN OMAR CAMPOS, a/k/a Melvin Omar Campos-Romero,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 11, 2015 Decided: March 18, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ellis C. Baggs, BAGGS LAW GROUP, PLC, Mechanicsville, Virginia,
for Petitioner. Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney
General, Francis W. Fraser, E. Tayo Otunla, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Melvin Omar Campos, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
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) (2012), we lack
jurisdiction, except as provided in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)
(2012), 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
[Campos] [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, we may then only consider “constitutional claims
or questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see Turkson v.
Holder, 667 F.3d 523, 527 (4th Cir. 2012).
Campos has conceded that he is a native and citizen of El
Salvador and does not contest that he has been convicted of a
criminal offense that qualifies as an aggravated felony. Upon
review, we agree with the Attorney General that the legal claims
2
advanced by Campos are not sufficiently colorable as to invoke
this court’s jurisdiction under § 1252(a)(2)(D). See, e.g.,
Jian Pan v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 80, 84 (1st Cir. 2007) (“To
trigger our jurisdiction [over a petition for review under the
REAL ID Act], the putative constitutional or legal challenge
must be more than a disguised challenge to factual findings.
The underlying constitutional or legal question must be
colorable; that is, the argument advanced must, at the very
least, have some potential validity.”); Arias v. U.S. Attorney
Gen., 482 F.3d 1281, 1284 & n.2 (11th Cir. 2007) (explaining
that, “[f]or a constitutional claim to be colorable, the alleged
violation need not be substantial, but the claim must have some
possible validity” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED
3