UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1571
EUNICE OSHODI, a/k/a Eunice Stanback,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: January 7, 2009 Decided: January 28, 2009
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Ann Berlin, Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioner. Gregory
G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Kristin K. Edison, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eunice Oshodi, a native and citizen of Nigeria,
petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
finding that Oshodi, a legal permanent resident of the United
States, is removable for having been convicted of a controlled
substance offense. 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) (2006).
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (2006), we lack
jurisdiction, except as provided in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)
(2006), to review the final order of removal of an alien
convicted of certain enumerated crimes, including offenses
covered in 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B) (2006). Because Oshodi was
found removable for having been convicted of a controlled
substance offense as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B), under
§ 1252(a)(2)(C), we have jurisdiction “to review factual
determinations that trigger the jurisdiction-stripping
provision, such as whether [Oshodi] [i]s an alien and whether
she has been convicted of [a controlled substance offense].”
Ramtulla v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 202, 203 (4th Cir. 2002); see
Lewis v. INS, 194 F.3d 539, 542-43 (4th Cir. 1999) (same). If
the predicate conditions are found, then, under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(C), (D), we may reach only “constitutional claims
or questions of law.” See Mbea v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 276, 278
n.1 (4th Cir. 2007).
2
Because we find that Oshodi is indeed an alien who has
been convicted of a controlled substance offense,
§ 1252(a)(2)(C) divests us of jurisdiction over the petition for
review, except to the extent that Oshodi raises a constitutional
issue or question of law. The sole issue Oshodi raises in her
petition for review is whether the Attorney General submitted
clear and convincing evidence to demonstrate she was convicted
of a controlled substance offense. This is a pure question of
law, and is thus reviewable. Rosales-Pineda v. Gonzales, 452
F.3d 627, 630 (7th Cir. 2006).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude the
Attorney General’s evidence of Oshodi’s conviction was both
admissible and clear and convincing. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(3)(B)(vi) (2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.41(d) (2008).
Thus, we find the Board’s affirmance of the IJ’s order of
removal was supported by substantial evidence. Anim v. Mukasey,
535 F.3d 243, 252 (4th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we deny 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 DENIED
3