UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2013
JERRY RODRIGO HOLTERS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: February 23, 2011 Decided: March 17, 2011
Before KING, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joshua A. Berman, BLAINE L. GILBERT & ASSOCIATES, P.A.,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant
Attorney General, Mark C. Walters, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Aaron R. Petty, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jerry Rodrigo Holters, a native and citizen of
Bolivia, petitions for review of a final administrative order of
expedited removal issued by the Department of Homeland Security.
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 Holters 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 [Holters] [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).
Although Holters concedes that he is a native and
citizen of Bolivia, he denies the allegation that he is
removable as an aggravated felon. Based on our review of the
2
record, we conclude that Holters’s conviction under Md. Code
Ann., Crim. Law § 7-105 (LexisNexis 2002), for attempted
unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, constituted an attempt to
commit a “theft offense . . . for which the term of imprisonment
[is] at least one year,” and was therefore an aggravated felony.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G), (U) (2006). 1 Accordingly, Holters
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. 2
We therefore 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
1
Accordingly, we need not consider whether Holters’s
conviction for petit larceny under Virginia law also constitutes
an aggravated felony.
2
We note that Holters 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