UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1012
SHIRLEY OSBOURNE HAYE, a/k/a Shirley Osburnce Haye,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: May 7, 2014 Decided: May 21, 2014
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shirley Osbourne Haye, Petitioner Pro Se. Stuart F. Delery,
Michael Christopher Heyse, John Hogan, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Shirley Osbourne Haye, a native and citizen of
Jamaica, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing 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
[Haye] [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 Haye has conceded that he is a native and
citizen of Jamaica and that he has been convicted of a criminal
offense that qualifies as an aggravated felony, see 8 U.S.C.
2
§ 1101(a)(43)(R) (2012) (defining aggravated felony as including
“an offense relating to . . . forgery . . . for which the term
of imprisonment is at least one year”), we find that
§ 1252(a)(2)(C) divests us of jurisdiction. * 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DISMISSED
*
Haye does not raise any questions of law or constitutional
issues that would fall within the exception set forth in
§ 1252(a)(2)(D).
3