Hellen Ngatia v. Loretta Lynch

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2009
HELLEN NJERI NGATIA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: May 7, 2015 Decided: May 22, 2015
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
S. Alexander Miller, LAW OFFICE OF S. ALEXANDER MILLER,
Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant
Director, Gladys M. Steffens Guzman, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Hellen Njeri Ngatia, a native and citizen of Kenya,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration
judge’s order finding that she was removable for having been
convicted of an aggravated felony and that she was ineligible
for asylum or withholding of removal in light of the finding
that her convictions were particularly serious crimes. We deny
in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (2012), we lack
jurisdiction, except as provided in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)
(2012), to review the final order of removal of an alien who is
removable for having an aggravated felony conviction. We retain
jurisdiction “only to review factual determinations that trigger
the jurisdiction-stripping provision, such as whether [Ngatia]
[i]s an alien and whether she 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.”
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see Mbea v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 276,
278 n.1 (4th Cir. 2007).
Ngatia challenges the Board’s finding that her convictions
were aggravated felonies as defined in 8 U.S.C.
2
§ 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) (2012) (defining aggravated felony as
including an offense that “involves fraud or deceit in which the
loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000”). Upon review,
we conclude that the agency properly determined that the loss
involved in Ngatia’s convictions exceeded $10,000. We therefore
uphold the agency’s decision and deny the petition for review in
part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Ngatia,
(B.I.A. Aug. 27, 2014).
Because Ngatia conceded before the immigration judge that
she is a native and citizen of Kenya and we agree with the
agency that she is removable as an aggravated felon, we find
that § 1252(a)(2)(C) divests us of jurisdiction over the
remainder of Ngatia’s petition for review. *
Accordingly, insofar as Ngatia challenges the Board’s order
finding that her convictions were aggravated felonies, we deny
the petition for review. Insofar as she challenges that part of
the Board’s order finding that her convictions were also
particularly serious crimes, we dismiss the petition for review.
*
Ngatia does not raise any other colorable questions of law
or constitutional issues that would fall within the exception
set forth in § 1252(a)(2)(D). See Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d
444, 448-49 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(C) barred review of the agency’s finding that
petitioner’s aggravated felony conviction was a particularly
serious crime where petitioner sought only “a re-weighing of the
factors involved in that discretionary determination”).
3
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;
DISMISSED IN PART
4