Senanu Amedome v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2153
SENANU AMEDOME,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: April 12, 2013 Decided: June 3, 2013
Before DIAZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Francis W. Fraser, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Jacob A. Bashyrov, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Senanu Amedome, a native and citizen of Ghana,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s order denying his applications for asylum, withholding
of removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). Because we are without jurisdiction, we dismiss the
petition for review.
The Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”)
provides that “[a]ny alien who is convicted of an aggravated
felony at any time after admission is deportable.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (2006). Section 1101(a)(43) lists offenses
that are aggravated felonies. The list includes “an offense
relating to commercial bribery, counterfeiting, forgery, or
trafficking in vehicles the identification numbers of which have
been altered for which the term of imprisonment is at least one
year[.]” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(R) (2006).
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (2006), this court
lacks jurisdiction, except as provided in 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(D), to review the final order of removal of an
alien convicted of certain enumerated crimes, including
aggravated felonies. Because Amedome was found removable for
having been convicted of an aggravated felony, under
§ 1252(a)(2)(C), this court retains jurisdiction “to review
2
factual determinations that trigger the jurisdiction-stripping
provision, such as whether [Amedome] [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. See Mbea v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 276, 278
n.1 (4th Cir. 2007). This court reviews legal issues, including
the question of whether a particular offense is an aggravated
felony, de novo. Id. at 279.
Amedome does not contest the finding that he is an
alien and that he was convicted of an aggravated felony.
Indeed, the record supports the finding that he is a native and
citizen of Ghana and that he was convicted in Virginia of
Forging a Public Record, Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-168 (2009), a
Class 4 Felony. Thus, this court’s jurisdiction extends only to
constitutional claims and questions of law. This exception to
the jurisdictional rule is “narrow.” Saintha v. Mukasey, 516
F.3d 243, 248 (4th Cir. 2008). The court does not have
jurisdiction to review factual determinations. Id. Factual
determinations are those determinations that this court would
review for substantial evidence. Id. at 249.
Amedome asserts that the record lacks substantial
evidence showing that he did not suffer past persecution, that
3
he did not show a clear probability of persecution and that he
did not show that it was more likely than not that he will be
tortured. These are clearly factual findings that this court
would review for substantial evidence. See Xiao Ji Chen v.
Department of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 329-30 (2d Cir. 2006)
(Petitioner cannot disguise an issue regarding fact finding by
calling it a constitutional claim or a question of law);
Higuit v. Gonzales, 433 F.3d 417, 420 (4th Cir. 2006) (Court is
not free to turn every discretionary decision into a question of
law) Amedome does not raise a constitutional claim or a
question of law.
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
4