UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1242
ONIEL A. ALLMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Department of Homeland
Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Submitted: February 15, 2011 Decided: March 18, 2011
Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Oniel A. Allman, Petitioner Pro Se. Tyrone Sojourner, David H.
Wetmore, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Oniel A. Allman, a native and citizen of Jamaica,
petitions for review of a final administrative order of
expedited removal issued by Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE). For the reasons discussed below, we deny 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 Allman 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 [Allman] [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 may consider only “constitutional
claims or questions of law.” See Mbea v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d
276, 278 n.1 (4th Cir. 2007).
Allman contends that he was not convicted of an
aggravated felony. Based on our review of the record, we find
that Allman’s conviction under Va. Code Ann. § 40.1-103 (Michie
2
2002 & Supp. 2010) amounted to a “crime of violence” and was
therefore an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F)
(2006). We therefore reject Allman’s contention that he was not
properly ordered removed pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b) (2006),
and find his assertion that he was indeed eligible for relief
from removal to be without merit.
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