UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2108
SAID HMAMOUCH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-2392
SAID HMAMOUCH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: April 17, 2014 Decided: April 22, 2014
Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petitions dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Said Hmamouch, Petitioner Pro Se. Ada Elsie Bosque, Yamileth G.
Davila, Nicole N. Murley, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated petitions for review, Said
Hmamouch, a native and citizen of Morocco, seeks review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing
his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision finding him
ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal and denying his
application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against
Torture (No. 13-2108) and the Board’s subsequent order denying
his motion to reconsider (No. 13-2391). For the reasons
discussed below, we dismiss the petitions 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 two or more crimes
involving moral turpitude, not arising out of a single scheme of
criminal misconduct, for each of which a sentence of a year or
longer may be imposed. See Planes v. Holder, 652 F.3d 991, 998
(9th Cir. 2011). Under § 1252(a)(2)(C), we retain jurisdiction
“to review factual determinations that trigger the jurisdiction-
stripping provision, such as whether [Hmamouch] [i]s an alien
and whether []he has been convicted of [qualifying crimes
involving moral turpitude].” 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
3
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).
Our review of the record reveals that Hmamouch has
conceded that he is a native and citizen of Morocco and that he
has been convicted of two or more crimes involving moral
turpitude. Because these crimes clearly did not arise out of a
common criminal scheme and they each carried a potential
sentence of more than one year, we find that § 1252(a)(2)(C)
divests us of jurisdiction. * We therefore grant the Attorney
General’s pending motion to dismiss the petition for review in
No. 13-2108 and dismiss both petitions 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.
PETITIONS DISMISSED
*
Hmamouch does not raise any colorable constitutional
issues or questions of law that would fall within the exception
set forth in § 1252(a)(2)(D). Although his challenge to the
agency’s determination that his conviction for unlawful wounding
constituted a crime of violence would typically be a question of
law over which we would retain jurisdiction pursuant to
§ 1252(a)(2)(D), we lack jurisdiction on the ground that
Hmamouch failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before
the Board. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012); Massis v. Mukasey,
549 F.3d 631, 638-40 (4th Cir. 2008).
4