Ijaz William v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A071-794-725. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999594255]. [14-2217]

Appeal: 14-2217

Doc: 34

Filed: 06/02/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2217

IJAZ WILLIAM,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

May 15, 2015

Decided:

June 2, 2015

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

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan M. Fee, Michael E. Ward, ALSTON & BIRD LLP, Washington,
D.C., for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Song Park, Senior Litigation Counsel, Lindsay
M. Murphy, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2217

Doc: 34

Filed: 06/02/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ijaz William, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions
for

review

of

an

order

of

the

Board

of

Immigration

Appeals

denying his motion to reopen after he affirmatively withdrew his
appeal and his opposition to the Attorney General’s appeal.

We

dismiss 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

convicted of certain enumerated crimes, including an aggravated
felony.

We

retain

determinations

jurisdiction

that

trigger

“only
the

to

review

factual

jurisdiction-stripping

provision, such as whether [William] [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 raised upon a petition for review.”
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see Mbea v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 276,
278 n.1 (4th Cir. 2007).
Because

William

concedes

that

he

is

an

alien

who

was

removed because he was convicted of an aggravated felony, our
review is limited to constitutional claims and questions of law.
William

challenges

that

part

of
2

the

Board’s

order

denying

Appeal: 14-2217

Doc: 34

Filed: 06/02/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

reopening in order to revisit the Board’s order sustaining the
Attorney

General’s

appeal

from

the

immigration

granting deferral of removal under the CAT.

judge’s

order

The Board denied

reopening to revisit the Board’s prior order because William
affirmatively
Attorney

withdrew

General’s

his

appeal,

(Administrative Record 3).

appeal
not

and

his

because

he

opposition
had

been

to

the

removed.

Because the Board’s decision in this

regard was a discretionary one, we do not have jurisdiction.

8

U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); see also, Larngar v. Holder, 562 F.3d
71, 75 (1st Cir. 2009) (court lacked jurisdiction, except for
constitutional

claims

alien’s motion

to

and

reopen,

questions
who

was

of

law,

removable

over
for

denial

of

having

been

review.

We

convicted of an aggravated felony).
Accordingly,
dispense

with

contentions

are

we

oral

dismiss
argument

adequately

the

petition

because

presented

in

the
the

for

facts

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DISMISSED

3