UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2324
ANDREW BERNARD FULLER,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: January 14, 2014 Decided: March 10, 2014
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew Bernard Fuller, Petitioner Pro Se. Andrea Gevas, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Andrew Bernard Fuller, a native and citizen of
Trinidad and Tobago, petitions for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without
opinion, his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his
request for deferral of removal 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 an aggravated felony. Under § 1252(a)(2)(C),
we retain jurisdiction “to review factual determinations that
trigger the jurisdiction-stripping provision, such as whether
[Fuller] [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.”
§ 1252(a)(2)(D); see Turkson v. Holder, 667 F.3d 523, 527 (4th
Cir. 2012).
Because Fuller has conceded that he is a native and
citizen of Trinidad and Tobago and that he has been convicted of
2
a criminal offense that qualifies as an aggravated felony, see 8
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) (2012) (defining aggravated felony as
including “a theft offense (including receipt of stolen
property) or burglary offense for which the term of imprisonment
[is] at least one year”), we find that § 1252(a)(2)(C) divests
us of jurisdiction over the petition for review. * 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 this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED
*
Fuller does not raise any questions of law or
constitutional issues that would fall within the exception set
forth in § 1252(a)(2)(D).
3