Ricardo Reyes v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A074-702-859 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999749881].. [15-1672]

Appeal: 15-1672

Doc: 25

Filed: 02/05/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1672

RICARDO JAVIER REYES,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

December 22, 2015

Decided:

February 5, 2016

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Lisa M. Arnold, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Scott M. Marconda, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1672

Doc: 25

Filed: 02/05/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ricardo Javier Reyes, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals
denial

dismissing
of

his

his

appeal

request

for

from

the

deferral

Convention Against Torture (CAT).

immigration

of

removal

judge’s

under

the

For the reasons discussed

below, we dismiss the petition for review.
Pursuant

to

jurisdiction,

8

except

U.S.C.
as

§ 1252(a)(2)(C)

provided

in

8

(2012),

U.S.C.

we

lack

§ 1252(a)(2)(D)

(2012), to review the final order of removal of an alien who is
removable

for

having

been

convicted

of

crimes, including an aggravated felony.

certain

enumerated

Under § 1252(a)(2)(C),

we retain jurisdiction “to review factual determinations that
trigger

the

jurisdiction-stripping

provision,

such

as

whether

[Reyes] [i]s an alien and whether []he has been convicted of an
aggravated felony.”

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

(4th Cir. 2002) (per curiam).

Once we confirm these two factual

determinations, we may then only consider “constitutional claims
or questions of law.”

8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see Turkson v.

Holder, 667 F.3d 523, 527 (4th Cir. 2012).
Reyes has conceded that he is a native and citizen of El
Salvador and does not contest that he has been convicted of a
criminal offense that qualifies as an aggravated felony.

Upon

review, we hold that the lead argument advanced by Reyes is not
2

Appeal: 15-1672

a

Doc: 25

Filed: 02/05/2016

sufficiently

colorable

Pg: 3 of 3

legal

question

as

court’s jurisdiction under § 1252(a)(2)(D).

to

invoke

this

See, e.g., Jian Pan

v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 80, 84 (1st Cir. 2007) (“To trigger our
jurisdiction,

the

putative

constitutional

or

legal

challenge

must be more than a disguised challenge to factual findings.”);
Arias v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 482 F.3d 1281, 1284 & n.2 (11th
Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (explaining that, for a claim to be
colorable,

it

“must

quotation

marks

have

some

omitted)).

possible

Nor

do

we

validity”
have

(internal

jurisdiction

to

consider Reyes’ second argument in which Reyes seeks review of
the agency’s critical factual determination in this case.
Hernandez-Nolasco
(holding

that

we

v.

Lynch,

lacked

807

F.3d

jurisdiction

95,
to

99

(4th

review

Cir.

See
2015)

petitioner’s

argument that the agency erroneously concluded “that he failed
to meet his evidentiary burden to establish that he qualifies
for deferral of removal under the CAT” because it raised “a
purely factual question”).
Accordingly,
dispense

with

we

oral

dismiss
argument

the

petition

because

the

for

review.

facts

and

We
legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DISMISSED

3