Miguel Saenz-Lopez v. Jefferson Sessions, III , 684 F. App'x 458 ( 2017 )

Case: 15-60401 Document: 00513943970 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/07/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 15-60401 April 7, 2017
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
MIGUEL ANGEL SAENZ-LOPEZ, also known as Miguel Saenz,
Petitioner
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A099 252 068
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Miguel Angel Saenz-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions this
court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his
application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT). Saenz-Lopez asserts that the BIA erred in affirming the order of
removal because the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was based on an
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 15-60401 Document: 00513943970 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/07/2017
No. 15-60401
erroneous application of the law. Saenz-Lopez further asserts that the
BIA was incorrect in its determination that, aside from objecting to the adverse
credibility determination, he had not challenged the IJ’s denial of his deferral
of removal claim.
Saenz-Lopez was previously convicted of an aggravated felony. We do
not have jurisdiction to review his claims regarding the denial of deferral of
removal under the CAT because these claims, however labeled, do not actually
present either a constitutional issue or a question of law. See Milat v. Holder,
755 F.3d 354, 359 (5th Cir. 2014); Siwe v. Holder, 742 F.3d 603, 613 (5th Cir.
2014); Rodriguez v. Holder, 705 F.3d 207, 210 (5th Cir. 2013); 8 U.S.C. §
1252(a)(2)(C) & (D). Accordingly, his petition for review is DISMISSED for
lack of jurisdiction.
2