Sean Glod v. Eric Holder, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1794
SEAN BYRD GLOD,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: February 18, 2014 Decided: March 21, 2014
Before DIAZ, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
General, Leslie McKay, Assistant Director, Melissa K. Lott,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Sean Byrd Glod, a native of Venezuela and a citizen of
Trinidad and Tobago, petitions for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the
Immigration Judge’s denial of his request for deferral of
removal under the Convention Against Torture. For the reasons
discussed below, we dismiss the petition for review.
Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), we lack
jurisdiction, except as provided in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), to
review the final order of removal of an alien who is removable
for having been convicted of certain enumerated offenses,
including an aggravated felony. Under § 1252(a)(2)(C), we
retain jurisdiction “to review factual determinations that
trigger the jurisdiction-stripping provision, such as whether
[Glod 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, we may only consider “constitutional claims or
questions of law.” § 1252(a)(2)(D); see also Turkson v. Holder,
667 F.3d 523, 527 (4th Cir. 2012).
Because Glod has conceded that he is an alien and that
he has been convicted of an aggravated felony, we find that
§ 1252(a)(2)(C) divests us of jurisdiction over the petition for
review. We have reviewed his claims on appeal and find that he
2
raises no colorable questions of law or constitutional claims.
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