Ben-Carew v. Mukasey , 260 F. App'x 552 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7693
ARTHUR KOBINA BEN-CAREW,
Petitioner,
versus
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-7747
ARTHUR KOBINA BEN-CAREW,
Petitioner,
versus
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A72-382-509)
Submitted: November 30, 2007 Decided: December 21, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petitions dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arthur Kobina Ben-Carew, Petitioner Pro Se. Song E. Park, M.
Jocelyn Lopez Wright, James Arthur Hunolt, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 for review, Arthur Kobina
Ben-Carew, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”)
summarily dismissing his appeal of the decision of the immigration
judge (“IJ”) finding him removable for committing a crime involving
moral turpitude, ineligible for asylum for committing an aggravated
felony, and denying withholding of removal and relief under the
Convention Against Torture. We dismiss the petitions.
Under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (West 2005), we have no
jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien
who is removable for having been convicted of a crime involving
moral turpitude or an aggravated felony. We only have jurisdiction
to review the factual determinations that trigger the applicability
of § 1252(a)(2)(C), Ramtulla v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 202, 203 (4th
Cir. 2002), and to resolve constitutional claims or questions of
law raised in the petition for review. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(a)(2)(D)
(West 2005); Mbea v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 276, 276 n.1 (4th Cir.
2007). In removal proceedings, Ben-Carew conceded he was removable
as an alien who was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude,
and we conclude that § 1252(a)(2)(C) is applicable.
Even in light of § 1252(a)(2)(D), we find we lack
jurisdiction to consider any claim raised in Ben-Carew’s petitions
for review, because he failed to properly exhaust his available
- 3 -
administrative remedies by raising the claims before the Board.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (West 2005); Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d
264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004). Ben-Carew does not challenge the
Board’s order summarily dismissing his appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(E) (2005) because of his failure to file a brief
or statement in support of his appeal after indicating that he
would do so. He does, however, allege his counsel was ineffective
for having failed to file any brief. Before we may consider this
issue, Ben-Carew must exhaust his administrative remedies by timely
moving to reopen before the Board. See Galvez Pineda v. Gonzales,
427 F.3d 833, 837-38 (10th Cir. 2005). Since the administrative
record before the court does not establish that he has done so, we
conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the claim.
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 -