Juan Hernandez-Paneda v. Loretta Lynch

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2194
JUAN HERNANDEZ-PANEDA, a/k/a Juan Hernandez,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: May 26, 2015 Decided: June 10, 2015
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Eileen P. Blessinger, Heather M. Cleary, BLESSINGER LEGAL, PLLC,
Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Joyce R. Branda, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant
Director, Dana M. Camilleri, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, DC, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Juan Hernandez-Paneda, a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”), dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen and
reconsider. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
It is uncontested that Hernandez-Paneda is removable for
having two convictions with an aggregate sentence of five years
or more. Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”)
§ 212(a)(2)(B); 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(B) (2012). We do not have
jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an
alien who is removable by reason of having committed a criminal
offense covered in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2) (2012), which includes
two or more offense for which the aggregate sentence was five
years or more. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (2012). Also, we
do not have jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of
relief under INA § 212(h); 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) (2012). See 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Despite these jurisdictional bars,
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012), we can consider
“constitutional claims or questions of law.” Mbea v. Gonzales,
482 F.3d 276, 278 n.1 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
2
Insofar as Hernandez-Paneda raises a legal challenge to the
finding that his conviction for involuntary manslaughter/DUI was
a violent or dangerous crime, see 8 C.F.R. § 1212.7(d) (2014),
upon de novo review, Turkson v. Holder, 667 F.3d 523, 527 (4th
Cir. 2012), we find that the Board did not err in agreeing with
the IJ’s finding and deny in part the petition for review. See,
e.g., Waldron v. Holder, 688 F.3d 354, 359 (8th Cir. 2012).
Hernandez-Paneda’s remaining arguments are not constitutional
claims or questions of law. We are without jurisdiction to
consider those arguments and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part 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 DENIED IN PART
AND DISMISSED IN PART
3