UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2417
RYAN DENSEL RATTAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: November 10, 2010 Decided: December 8, 2010
Before KING, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marc Seguinót, SEGUINÓT & ASSOCIATES, Dunn Loring, Virginia, for
Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Blair T.
O’Connor, Assistant Director, Joseph D. Hardy, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ryan Densel Rattan, a native and citizen of Trinidad
and Tobago, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s decision finding him removable as an
aggravated felon, denying his motion to terminate proceedings,
and finding him ineligible for relief from removal. For the
reasons discussed below, we dismiss the petition for review.
Pursuant to 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 who is
removable for having been convicted of certain enumerated
crimes, including aggravated felonies. Because Rattan was found
removable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony,
under § 1252(a)(2)(C), we have jurisdiction “to review factual
determinations that trigger the jurisdiction-stripping
provision, such as whether [Rattan] [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). Once we confirm
these two factual determinations, then, under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(C), (D), we can only consider “constitutional
claims or questions of law.” See Mbea v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d
276, 278 n.1 (4th Cir. 2007).
2
Although Rattan concedes that he is a native and
citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, he denies the allegation that he
is removable as an aggravated felon. Based on our review of the
record, we find that Rattan’s convictions under Virginia law for
petit larceny were for “theft offense[s] . . . for which the
term of imprisonment [is] at least one year” and were therefore
aggravated felonies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) (2006).
Accordingly, Rattan is indeed an alien who has been convicted of
an aggravated felony, and § 1252(a)(2)(C) divests us of
jurisdiction over the petition for review. *
We therefore grant the Attorney General’s motion to
dismiss and 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
*
We note that Rattan does not raise any colorable questions
of law or constitutional issues that would fall within the
exception set forth in § 1252(a)(2)(D).
3