Senanu Amedome v. Eric Holder, Jr.
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A046-707-210 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999120306].. [12-2153]
Appeal: 12-2153
Doc: 34
Filed: 06/03/2013
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2153
SENANU AMEDOME,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted:
April 12, 2013
Before DIAZ and
Circuit Judge.
FLOYD,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
and
June 3, 2013
HAMILTON,
Senior
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner.
Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Francis W. Fraser, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Jacob A. Bashyrov, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 12-2153
Doc: 34
Filed: 06/03/2013
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Senanu
Amedome,
a
native
and
citizen
of
Ghana,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals
(“Board”)
dismissing
his
appeal
from
the
immigration
judge’s order denying his applications for asylum, withholding
of removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”).
Because we are without jurisdiction, we dismiss the
petition for review.
The
Immigration
and
Naturalization
Act
(“INA”)
provides that “[a]ny alien who is convicted of an aggravated
felony at any time after admission is deportable.”
§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (2006).
Section 1101(a)(43) lists offenses
that are aggravated felonies.
relating
to
commercial
8 U.S.C.
The list includes “an offense
bribery,
counterfeiting,
forgery,
or
trafficking in vehicles the identification numbers of which have
been altered for which the term of imprisonment is at least one
year[.]”
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(R) (2006).
Under
lacks
8
jurisdiction,
§ 1252(a)(2)(D),
alien
U.S.C.
convicted
been
to
review
of
this
as
the
(2006),
provided
final
certain
order
enumerated
in
of
this
8
U.S.C.
removal
crimes,
court
of
an
including
Because Amedome was found removable for
convicted
§ 1252(a)(2)(C),
1252(a)(2)(C)
except
aggravated felonies.
having
§
of
court
an
aggravated
retains
2
felony,
jurisdiction
“to
under
review
Appeal: 12-2153
Doc: 34
Filed: 06/03/2013
Pg: 3 of 4
factual determinations that trigger the jurisdiction-stripping
provision, such as whether [Amedome] [i]s an alien and whether
[]he has been convicted of an aggravated felony.”
Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 202, 203 (4th Cir. 2002).
Ramtulla v.
Once the court
confirms these two factual determinations, then, under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(C), (D), it can only consider constitutional claims
or questions of law.
See Mbea v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 276, 278
n.1 (4th Cir. 2007).
This court reviews legal issues, including
the question of whether a particular offense is an aggravated
felony, de novo.
Id. at 279.
Amedome does not contest the finding that he is an
alien
and
that
he
was
convicted
of
an
aggravated
felony.
Indeed, the record supports the finding that he is a native and
citizen
of
Forging
a
Ghana
Public
Class 4 Felony.
and
that
Record,
he
Va.
was
Code
convicted
Ann.
248
(2009),
of
a
Thus, this court’s jurisdiction extends only to
the jurisdictional rule is “narrow.”
243,
Virginia
§ 18.2-168
constitutional claims and questions of law.
F.3d
in
(4th
Cir.
2008).
This exception to
Saintha v. Mukasey, 516
The
court
jurisdiction to review factual determinations.
does
Id.
not
have
Factual
determinations are those determinations that this court would
review for substantial evidence.
Amedome
asserts
Id. at 249.
that
the
record
lacks
substantial
evidence showing that he did not suffer past persecution, that
3
Appeal: 12-2153
Doc: 34
Filed: 06/03/2013
Pg: 4 of 4
he did not show a clear probability of persecution and that he
did not show that it was more likely than not that he will be
tortured.
These are clearly factual findings that this court
would review for substantial evidence.
Department
of
Justice,
471
F.3d
315,
See Xiao Ji Chen v.
329-30
(2d
Cir.
2006)
(Petitioner cannot disguise an issue regarding fact finding by
calling
it
a
constitutional
claim
or
a
question
of
law);
Higuit v. Gonzales, 433 F.3d 417, 420 (4th Cir. 2006) (Court is
not free to turn every discretionary decision into a question of
law)
Amedome
does
not
raise
a
constitutional
claim
or
a
question of law.
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review.
dispense
with
contentions
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
We
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?