United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 28, 2007
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60789
Summary Calendar
EDGAR ENRIQUE MORENO-ORTIZ,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A20 842 171
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Edgar Enrique Moreno-Ortiz, a native and citizen of
Columbia, petitions this court for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration
Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for relief under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT). Because Moreno-Ortiz is alien
removable as an aggravated felon, this court’s jurisdiction over
his petition for review is limited solely to constitutional
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 05-60789
-2-
claims or questions of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D).
Moreno-Ortiz argues that the IJ applied the incorrect legal
standard to his claim for relief under the CAT and that his
substantive due process rights under the state-created danger
exception will be violated if he is removed to Columbia.
This court previously held that it did not have jurisdiction
to review Moreno-Ortiz’s first petition for review and Moreno-
Ortiz has not demonstrated why his current constitutional claim
could not have been presented in his first petition. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(d)(2); see Medina v. INS, 993 F.2d 499, 503 (5th Cir.
1993). This court is therefore without jurisdiction to review
Moreno-Ortiz’s constitutional claim.
We further find that the IJ clearly set forth the proper
legal standard to be applied in determining whether Moreno-Ortiz
is entitled to protection under the CAT. Because the IJ
articulated the correct standard, Moreno-Ortiz has failed to
raise a true question of law over which this court has
jurisdiction. See Delgado-Reynua v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 596, 599-
600 (5th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, Moreno-Ortiz’s petition for review is
DISMISSED.