Gregory Taylor v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A042-855-333 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999281393]. Mailed to: Gregory Taylor. [13-2196]

Appeal: 13-2196

Doc: 15

Filed: 01/22/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2196

GREGORY BOBBY TAYLOR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted:

January 7, 2014

Decided:

January 22, 2014

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Bobby Taylor, Petitioner Pro Se.
William Charles
Peachey, Edward Earl Wiggers, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-2196

Doc: 15

Filed: 01/22/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Gregory Bobby Taylor, a native and citizen of Jamaica,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals

(“Board”)

judge’s

order

dismissing

denying

appeal

motion

his

his

to

from

the

reopen.

immigration

We

deny

the

petition for review.
We “review the denial of a motion to reopen for an
abuse of discretion” and will reverse “only if it is arbitrary,
irrational, or contrary to law.”

Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d

397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); see
also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) (2013).
Under

8

U.S.C.

§

1252(a)(2)(C)

(2012),

we

lack

jurisdiction, except as provided in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), to
review
certain

the

final

order

enumerated

of

removal

crimes,

of

including

an

alien

convicted

an

aggravated

of

felony.

Under § 1252(a)(2)(C), we retain jurisdiction “to review factual
determinations

that

trigger

the

jurisdiction-stripping

provision, such as whether [Taylor] [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.

If we are able to

confirm these two factual determinations, then, under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(C),

(D),

we

can

claims or questions of law.”

only

consider

“constitutional

See Mbea v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d

276, 278 n.1 (4th Cir. 2007).
2

Appeal: 13-2196

Doc: 15

Filed: 01/22/2014

Pg: 3 of 4

When a person fails to appear for a removal hearing
after

having

received

written

notice

of

the

hearing,

the

immigration judge shall order that person removed in absentia if
the

Government

establishes

that

U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5) (2012).

the

person

is

removable.

8

Written notice of the time and

place of the hearing is proper if given “in person to the alien
(or, if personal service is not practicable, through service by
mail

to

the

alien

any)[.]”

8

Government

can

or

U.S.C.

to

§

the

alien’s

1229(a)(1)

establish

proper

counsel

(2012).

notice

of

record,

Accordingly,

by

demonstrating

if
the

that

written notice of the time and place of the proceedings and of
the consequences of a failure to appear, “were provided to the
alien

or

the

alien’s

counsel

of

record.”

8

C.F.R.

§ 1003.26(c)(2) (2013).
Taylor

does

not

contest

the

finding

that

he

is

removable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony.
Thus,

our

review

is

questions of law.
Board’s

finding

Taylor’s

last

to

constitutional

claims

and

Taylor does not meaningfully challenge the

that

known

limited

notice

of

address

and

the

hearing

that

he

did

was
not

sent

to

the

inform

the

immigration court of his new address when he moved.

In any

event, whether notice was properly sent is a question of fact
and not a reviewable constitutional claim or question of law.
See Lopez-Dubon v. Holder, 609 F.3d 642, 646-47 (5th Cir. 2010)
3

Appeal: 13-2196

Doc: 15

(whether

an

Filed: 01/22/2014

alien

receives

Pg: 4 of 4

proper

notice

of

a

hearing

is

a

factual finding).
Taylor’s contention that he is eligible for deferral
of removal under the Convention Against Torture does not present
a reviewable issue because Taylor did not apply for such relief
before the immigration judge.
Because

we

conclude

that

the

Board

did

not

err

affirming the immigration judge’s order denying the motion to
reopen, we deny the petition for review.
motion to stay.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We deny as moot the

We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

4