United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 20, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-61042
Summary Calendar
PRINCE AHADZIE DANIELS,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA No. A90 893 761)
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Prince Adhazie Daniels, a citizen and native of Ghana, has
petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
decision dismissing his appeal from an order of removal. Pursuant
to § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) initiated removal proceedings against
Daniels based on his convictions for crimes involving moral
turpitude.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Daniels sought withholding of removal under § 241(b)(3) of the
INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT), see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16, based on alleged persecution
in Ghana; Daniels claimed threats had been made against him due to
his father’s political views. The immigration judge (IJ) denied
Daniels’ request for withholding removal and ordered him removed to
Ghana. The IJ’s decision did not address specifically Daniel’s CAT
claim.
Daniels appealed to the BIA, again seeking withholding of
removal under the INA and also asserting the IJ erred in failing to
address his CAT claim. The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s
decision and rejected Daniels’ CAT claim, finding he “failed to
allege facts which would indicate the applicability of this relief”
and “failed to allege that he more likely than not would be
tortured by, or with the acquiescence of, the government of Ghana”.
Daniels contends he is entitled both to withholding of removal
and to relief under CAT. The Government counters that this court
lacks jurisdiction because Daniels’ removal was predicated on his
commission of crimes involving moral turpitude and does not present
constitutional claims or questions of law.
Daniels admits that, pursuant to § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the
INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), his removal order was based on
his commission of crimes involving moral turpitude. Congress has
restricted this court from reviewing such removal orders. 8 U.S.C.
2
§ 1252(a)(2)(C) (stating “no court shall have jurisdiction to
review any final order of removal against an alien who is removable
by reason of having committed a criminal offense covered in section
1182(a)(2) ... of this title”); see also Alwan v. Ashcroft, 388
F.3d 507, 515 (5th Cir. 2004) (applying jurisdictional bar to
claims under both the INA and CAT). Therefore, concerning Daniels’
claim that the decisions of the IJ and BIA were not supported by
substantial evidence, the petition is DISMISSED IN PART for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
Daniels also asserts the BIA erred in failing to address the
merits of his CAT claim. This court has jurisdiction to review
this question of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Contrary to
Daniels’ argument, however, the BIA considered and rejected the CAT
claim. Therefore, with respect to this contention, Daniels’
petition is DENIED IN PART.
DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART
3