Duc Dinh v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1137
DUC NGOC DINH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 12, 2012 Decided: July 20, 2012
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ivan Yacub, LAW OFFICE OF IVAN YACUB, Falls Church, Virginia,
for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney
General, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant Director, Jamie M.
Dowd, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Duc Ngoc Dinh, a native and citizen of Vietnam,
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 to terminate proceedings and
finding him removable for having been convicted of an aggravated
felony. 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 aggravated felonies. Because Dinh was found
removable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony,
under § 1252(a)(2)(C), we have jurisdiction “to review factual
determinations that trigger the jurisdiction-stripping
provision, such as whether [Dinh] [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.” See Mbea v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d
276, 278 n.1 (4th Cir. 2007).
Although Dinh concedes that he is a native and citizen
of Vietnam, he denies the allegation that he is removable as an
2
aggravated felon. Based on our review of the record, we
conclude that Dinh’s conviction under Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law
§ 7–105 (LexisNexis 2012), Motor Vehicle Theft, constituted an
attempt to commit a “theft offense . . . for which the term of
imprisonment [is] at least one year,” and was therefore an
aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) (2006).
Accordingly, Dinh is indeed an alien who has been convicted of
an aggravated felony, and § 1252(a)(2)(C) divests us of
jurisdiction over the petition for review. We 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
3