Ijaz William v. Loretta Lynch ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2217
IJAZ WILLIAM,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: May 15, 2015 Decided: June 2, 2015
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jonathan M. Fee, Michael E. Ward, ALSTON & BIRD LLP, Washington,
D.C., for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Song Park, Senior Litigation Counsel, Lindsay
M. Murphy, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ijaz William, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
denying his motion to reopen after he affirmatively withdrew his
appeal and his opposition to the Attorney General’s appeal. We
dismiss the petition for review.
Under 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
convicted of certain enumerated crimes, including an aggravated
felony. We retain jurisdiction “only to review factual
determinations that trigger the jurisdiction-stripping
provision, such as whether [William] [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 the Court
confirms these two factual determinations, then, under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(C), (D), it can only consider “constitutional
claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review.”
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see Mbea v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 276,
278 n.1 (4th Cir. 2007).
Because William concedes that he is an alien who was
removed because he was convicted of an aggravated felony, our
review is limited to constitutional claims and questions of law.
William challenges that part of the Board’s order denying
2
reopening in order to revisit the Board’s order sustaining the
Attorney General’s appeal from the immigration judge’s order
granting deferral of removal under the CAT. The Board denied
reopening to revisit the Board’s prior order because William
affirmatively withdrew his appeal and his opposition to the
Attorney General’s appeal, not because he had been removed.
(Administrative Record 3). Because the Board’s decision in this
regard was a discretionary one, we do not have jurisdiction. 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); see also, Larngar v. Holder, 562 F.3d
71, 75 (1st Cir. 2009) (court lacked jurisdiction, except for
constitutional claims and questions of law, over denial of
alien’s motion to reopen, who was removable for having been
convicted of an aggravated felony).
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