UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1156
LEONARDO SERVO MEDINA-FERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A23-108-169)
Submitted: September 15, 2004 Decided: October 7, 2004
Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nathaniel Sims, LAW OFFICE OF NATHANIEL SIMS, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Richard
M. Evans, Assistant Director, Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Leonardo Servo Medina-Fernandez, a.k.a. Leonardo
Fernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
a Final Administrative Removal Order issued by the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (“INS”). Fernandez was found removable
because he was an alien who was admitted without inspection and had
committed in California an aggravated felony. Fernandez contends
he was not the person alleged to have committed the aggravated
felony. He further alleges he was not properly served with the
order of removal. Because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss the
petition for review.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (2000), “[n]otwithstanding
any other provision of law, no court shall have jurisdiction to
review any final order of removal against an alien who is removable
by reason of having committed a criminal offense [including an
aggravated felony] . . .” We have noted that “under this section
there is plainly no appellate recourse from a final order of
removal for an alien who is removable because he has committed an
offense encompassed by section 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), that is, because
he has committed an aggravated felony.” Lewis v. INS, 194 F.3d
539, 541 (4th Cir. 1999). We retain jurisdiction to determine
whether the jurisdictional facts precluding review are present in
a particular case. Id. at 541-42. The jurisdictional bar is
triggered by a determination that a petitioner is an alien who has
- 2 -
been convicted of one of the statutorily enumerated offenses
requiring removal. Id. at 542.
Our review is limited to the administrative record. In
addition, administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4) (2000).
We find nothing in the record to contradict the finding
that Fernandez is an alien who was admitted without inspection and
who committed an aggravated felony here in the United States.
Thus, we lack jurisdiction to consider this petition for review.
We dismiss the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED
- 3 -