UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1603
EHIABHI EGBOH,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Immigration Court.
Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: January 4, 2017
Before TRAXLER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant
Director, Vanessa M. Otero, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ehiabhi Egboh, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for
review of the immigration judge’s order concurring with an asylum
officer’s determination that Egboh failed to establish a
reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Nigeria. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.31(g)(1) (2012).
Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (2012), we lack
jurisdiction to review the final order of removal of an alien
convicted of certain enumerated crimes, including an aggravated
felony. We retain jurisdiction only over constitutional claims or
questions of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012); see Turkson v.
Holder, 667 F.3d 523, 526–27 (4th Cir. 2012); Gomis v. Holder, 571
F.3d 353, 358 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[A]bsent a colorable constitutional
claim or question of law, our review of the issue is not authorized
by [8 U.S.C. §] 1252(a)(2)(D).”).
Upon review, we find that the claims raised by Egboh are not
sufficiently colorable to invoke this court’s jurisdiction. See
Lumataw v. Holder, 582 F.3d 78, 84 (1st Cir. 2009) (“To form the
basis of judicial review under § 1252(a)(2)(D), the alleged
underlying constitutional or legal question must be colorable;
that is, the argument advanced must, at the very least, have some
potential validity.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for lack of
jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
2
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DISMISSED
3