UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2004
TULIO ABELINO SARAVIA-GONZALEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: January 16, 2014 Decided: January 27, 2014
Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tulio Abelino Saravia-Gonzalez, Petitioner Pro Se. Stuart F.
Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel Eric Goldman, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Jonathan Aaron Robbins, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Tulio Abelino Saravia-Gonzalez, 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 requests for withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss the petition for
review.
Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (2012), we lack
jurisdiction, except as provided in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)
(2012), to review the final order of removal of an alien who is
removable for having been convicted of certain enumerated
crimes, including a controlled substance offense. Under
§ 1252(a)(2)(C), we retain jurisdiction “to review factual
determinations that trigger the jurisdiction-stripping
provision, such as whether [Saravia-Gonzalez] [i]s an alien and
whether []he has been convicted of a [controlled substance
offense].” 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.” § 1252(a)(2)(D);
see Turkson v. Holder, 667 F.3d 523, 527 (4th Cir. 2012).
Because Saravia-Gonzalez has conceded that he is a
native and citizen of El Salvador and that he has been convicted
2
of a controlled substance offense, we find that § 1252(a)(2)(C)
divests us of jurisdiction over the petition for review. * We
therefore deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss
the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED
*
Saravia-Gonzalez does not raise any colorable
constitutional issues or questions of law that would fall within
the exception set forth in § 1252(a)(2)(D).
3