UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1471
JUNIOR ANTHONY PHILLIPS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 17, 2012 Decided: September 11, 2012
Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Junior Anthony Phillips, Petitioner Pro Se. Stefanie A. Svoren-
Jay, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Junior Anthony Phillips, a native and citizen of
Jamaica, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) sustaining the Department of
Homeland Security’s appeal from the immigration judge’s grant of
Phillips’ application 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) (2006), we lack
jurisdiction, except as provided in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)
(2006), 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
[Phillips] [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 Mbea v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 276, 278 n.1
(4th Cir. 2007).
Because Phillips has conceded that he is a native and
citizen of Jamaica and that he has been convicted of an
2
aggravated felony as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) (2006)
(defining aggravated felony as including “a theft offense
(including receipt of stolen property) or burglary offense for
which the term of imprisonment [is] at least one year”), we find
that § 1252(a)(2)(C) divests us of jurisdiction over the
petition for review. * 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
*
Phillips does not raise any colorable questions of law or
constitutional issues that would fall within the exception set
forth in § 1252(a)(2)(D).
3