Estarlin Valdez Almonte v. Jefferson Sessions III , 699 F. App'x 282 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 17-1410
    ESTARLIN RAFAEL VALDEZ ALMONTE,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted: October 13, 2017                                  Decided: November 1, 2017
    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Japheth N. Matemu, MATEMU LAW OFFICE P.C., Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Petitioner. Chad Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux,
    Assistant Director, Matthew Connelly, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION,
    Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Estarlin Rafael Valdez Almonte, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic,
    petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his
    appeal of the Immigration Judge’s decision denying his request for deferral of removal
    under the Convention Against Torture. Pursuant to 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (a)(2)(C) (2012), we
    lack jurisdiction to review the final order of removal of an alien convicted of certain
    enumerated crimes, including an aggravated felony. We retain jurisdiction only over
    constitutional claims or questions of law.       
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (a)(2)(D) (2012); see
    Turkson v. Holder, 
    667 F.3d 523
    , 526-27 (4th Cir. 2012); Gomis v. Holder, 
    571 F.3d 353
    ,
    358 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[A]bsent a colorable constitutional claim or question of law, our
    review of the issue is not authorized by [8 U.S.C. §] 1252(a)(2)(D).”).
    Upon review, we find that Valdez Almonte has not raised any reviewable issues.
    Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-1410

Citation Numbers: 699 F. App'x 282

Filed Date: 11/1/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023