Case: 18-11506 Date Filed: 12/21/2018 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-11506 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A013-258-567 JOSE ABELLA-SANTAMARINA, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (December 21, 2018) Before MARCUS, BRANCH and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Jose Abella-Santamarina seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for a waiver of grounds of excludability under former Immigration Case: 18-11506 Date Filed: 12/21/2018 Page: 2 of 7 and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 212(a), pursuant to former INA § 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1988). As the record reflects, Abella was convicted in 1990 after a jury trial for one count of conspiracy to import cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963, and one count of importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. On appeal, Abella argues that the BIA legally erred when it determined that the facts of his crime he testified to could not plausibly sustain a conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 963 and when it failed to apply the proper factors for making a credibility finding. After careful review, we dismiss the petition. We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent that the BIA expressly adopts or explicitly agrees with the IJ’s opinion. Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 948 (11th Cir. 2010). Here, the BIA issued its own decision but agreed with the IJ’s finding of facts, so we will review the BIA’s decision and the IJ’s decision, to the extent of their agreement. See id. We review questions of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Sanchez Jimenez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 492 F.3d 1223, 1231 (11th Cir. 2007). We are obligated to inquire into our jurisdiction whenever it may be lacking. Arias v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 482 F.3d 1281, 1283 (11th Cir. 2007). Congress generally divested us of jurisdiction to review any decision or action committed to the discretion of the Attorney General. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). We’re also barred from reviewing “any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having 2 Case: 18-11506 Date Filed: 12/21/2018 Page: 3 of 7 committed a criminal offense covered in section 1182(a)(2) or 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) . . . ” of Title 8. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). Our jurisdiction under § 1252(a)(2)(C) is limited to determining whether a petitioner is an (1) alien (2) who is removable (3) for a disqualifying offense. Ferguson v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 563 F.3d 1254, 1259 n.9 (11th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, we retain jurisdiction to review any constitutional question or question of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). We must “look hard” at the petitioner’s actual arguments -- not just his description of his claims -- to assess whether we have jurisdiction to consider his petition ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals