Hellen Ngatia v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A095-264-292 Copies to all parties and the agency. [999588704]. [14-2009]

Appeal: 14-2009

Doc: 24

Filed: 05/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2009

HELLEN NJERI NGATIA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

May 7, 2015

Decided:

May 22, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Petition denied in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.

S. Alexander Miller, LAW OFFICE OF S. ALEXANDER MILLER,
Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant
Director, Gladys M. Steffens Guzman, Office of Immigration
Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2009

Doc: 24

Filed: 05/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Hellen

Njeri

Ngatia,

a

native

and

citizen

of

Kenya,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals

(“Board”)

dismissing

her

appeal

from

the

immigration

judge’s order finding that she was removable for having been
convicted of an aggravated felony and that she was ineligible
for asylum or withholding of removal in light of the finding
that her convictions were particularly serious crimes.

We deny

in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
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)
(2012), to review the final order of removal of an alien who is
removable for having an aggravated felony conviction.

We retain

jurisdiction “only to review factual determinations that trigger
the jurisdiction-stripping provision, such as whether [Ngatia]
[i]s

an

alien

and

aggravated felony.”
(4th

Cir.

whether

she

has

been

convicted

of

an

Ramtulla v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 202, 203

2002).

Once

we

confirm

these

two

factual

determinations, then, under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D), we
can only consider “constitutional claims or questions of law.”
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see Mbea v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 276,
278 n.1 (4th Cir. 2007).
Ngatia challenges the Board’s finding that her convictions
were

aggravated

felonies

as
2

defined

in

8

U.S.C.

Appeal: 14-2009

Doc: 24

Filed: 05/22/2015

§ 1101(a)(43)(M)(i)

(2012)

Pg: 3 of 4

(defining

aggravated

felony

as

including an offense that “involves fraud or deceit in which the
loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000”).

Upon review,

we conclude that the agency properly determined that the loss
involved in Ngatia’s convictions exceeded $10,000.

We therefore

uphold the agency’s decision and deny the petition for review in
part for the reasons stated by the Board.

See In re: Ngatia,

(B.I.A. Aug. 27, 2014).
Because Ngatia conceded before the immigration judge that
she is a native and citizen of Kenya and we agree with the
agency that she is removable as an aggravated felon, we find
that

§

1252(a)(2)(C)

divests

us

of

jurisdiction

over

the

remainder of Ngatia’s petition for review. *
Accordingly, insofar as Ngatia challenges the Board’s order
finding that her convictions were aggravated felonies, we deny
the petition for review.
the

Board’s

order

Insofar as she challenges that part of

finding

that

her

convictions

were

also

particularly serious crimes, we dismiss the petition for review.

*

Ngatia does not raise any other colorable questions of law
or constitutional issues that would fall within the exception
set forth in § 1252(a)(2)(D). See Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d
444,
448-49
(9th
Cir.
2012)
(holding
that
8
U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(C) barred review of the agency’s finding that
petitioner’s aggravated felony conviction was a particularly
serious crime where petitioner sought only “a re-weighing of the
factors involved in that discretionary determination”).

3

Appeal: 14-2009

We

Doc: 24

dispense

contentions

Filed: 05/22/2015

with
are

Pg: 4 of 4

oral

because

argument

adequately

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

4