Edward Owusu v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2092
EDWARD KWEKU OWUSU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-1113
EDWARD KWEKU OWUSU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 11, 2012 Decided: July 12, 2012
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petitions dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, James E. Grimes, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Gregory M. Kelch, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated petitions, Edward Kweku Owusu, 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 motion for a
continuance and finding he was removable for having been
convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, see Immigration and
Nationality Act (“INA”) § 237(a)(2)(A)(i); 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) (2006), and not eligible for a waiver of
inadmissibility under INA § 212(h), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) (2006),
and from the Board’s order denying reconsideration. Because we
lack jurisdiction, we dismiss the petitions.
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) (2006), to review the final order of removal of
an alien convicted of certain enumerated crimes, including a
crime of moral turpitude. Under § 1252(a)(2)(C), this court
retains jurisdiction to review factual determinations such as
whether Owusu is an alien and whether he has been convicted of a
crime of moral turpitude. Ramtulla v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 202,
203 (4th Cir. 2002). If the court is able to confirm these two
factual determinations, then, under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C),
(D), the court can only consider “constitutional claims or
3
questions of law.” See Mbea v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 276, 278 n.1
(4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Owusu concedes that he is an alien and that he is
removable for having a conviction for a crime of moral
turpitude. Thus, this court can only review constitutional
claims or questions of law. Owusu challenges the decision to
deny his request for a third continuance for the purpose of
pursuing relief in state court from his conviction. Because our
review of the denial of Owusu’s request for a continuance is for
abuse of discretion, see Lendo v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 439, 441
(4th Cir. 2007), he does not raise a reviewable constitutional
claim or a question of law.
Because Owusu is an alien found removable for having a
conviction for a crime of moral turpitude and he does not raise
a constitutional claim or a question of law regarding the
Board’s two orders, we lack jurisdiction. Accordingly, we
dismiss the petitions 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.
PETITIONS DISMISSED
4