Montrevil v. Holder

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2399
JEAN MURAT MONTREVIL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: September 11, 2009
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joshua E. Bardavid, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony
West, Assistant Attorney General, Anh-Thu P. Mai-Windle, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Julie M. Iversen, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jean Murat Montrevil, a native and citizen of Haiti,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen. For the reasons
discussed below, we deny 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
convicted of certain enumerated crimes, including offenses
covered in § 1182(a)(2) of the immigration statutes. Because
Montrevil was found removable for having been convicted of a
controlled substance offense pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), under § 1252(a)(2)(C), we have
jurisdiction “to review factual determinations that trigger the
jurisdiction-stripping provision, such as whether [Montrevil]
[i]s an alien and whether []he has been convicted of [a
controlled substance offense].” 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).
Because we find that Montrevil is indeed an alien who
has been convicted of a controlled substance offense,
§ 1252(a)(2)(C) divests us of jurisdiction over the petition for
2
review absent a colorable constitutional claim or question of
law. Although Montrevil raises several questions of law in his
petition for review, we find that his claims are squarely
foreclosed by our recent decision in Zheng v. Holder, 562 F.3d
647 (4th Cir. 2009). ∗
Accordingly, we deny 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 DENIED
∗
Additionally, to the extent that Montrevil argues that the
Board committed legal error in finding that he failed to
demonstrate changed country conditions, we find that the Board
correctly concluded that Montrevil merely “assert[ed] a fear of
a personal nature, not one relating to changes in Haiti.” See
Zhang v. Att’y Gen., __ F.3d __, 2009 WL 1856787 (11th Cir. June
30, 2009) (“An alien cannot circumvent the requirement of
changed country conditions by demonstrating only a change in her
personal circumstances.”).
3