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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 12-2153 Doc: 34 Filed: 06/03/2013 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2153 SENANU AMEDOME, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.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 FLOYD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and June 3, 2013 HAMILTON, Senior Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?