UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1014
JOSE H. RIVERA, a/k/a Jose M. Rivera, a/k/a Jose Hector
Rivera,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 16, 2009 Decided: August 12, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Gruel, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony
West, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant
Director, James E. Grimes, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jose H. Rivera, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s denial of his applications for cancellation of removal
and a waiver of inadmissibility pursuant to § 212(h) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act. For the reasons discussed
below, we dismiss the petition the review for lack of
jurisdiction.
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 § 1182(a)(2) of the immigration statutes. Because
Rivera was found removable for having been convicted of a crime
of moral turpitude pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I),
under § 1252(a)(2)(C), we have jurisdiction “to review factual
determinations that trigger the jurisdiction-stripping
provision, such as whether [Rivera] [i]s an alien and whether
[]he has been convicted of [a crime of moral turpitude].”
Ramtulla v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 202, 203 (4th Cir. 2002). Once
we confirm these two factual determinations, then, under 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D), we can only consider
2
“constitutional claims or questions of law.” See Mbea v.
Gonzales, 482 F.3d 276, 278 n.1 (4th Cir. 2007).
Because we find that Rivera is indeed an alien who has
been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, § 1252(a)(2)(C)
divests us of jurisdiction over the petition for review.
Although Rivera attempts to raise raises numerous arguments
challenging the denial of his applications for relief, he
overlooks the fact that the immigration judge ultimately found
that he was not entitled to relief as a matter of discretion.
We have clearly held that § 1252(a)(2)(D) does not authorize
review of discretionary determinations that are based on factual
circumstances. See Gomis v. Holder, __ F.3d __, 2009 WL
1912622, *5 (4th Cir. 2009); Saintha v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 243,
248 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 595 (2008).
Accordingly, 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