NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 17-2351 ___________ HEANYI JOSEPH OKORAFOR, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _______________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A055-579-799 (Immigration Judge: Walter A. Durling) ______________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) October 4, 2019 Before: SHWARTZ, SCIRICA, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges. (Opinion Filed: October 24, 2019) ________________ OPINION* ________________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. SCIRICA, Circuit Judge Heanyi Okorafor1 challenges the decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) and Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), 8 C.F.R. § 208.17.2 For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that we lack subject-matter jurisdiction over the issues presented in this petition for review3 and will dismiss the petition in its entirety. Petitioner presents three arguments for our consideration: whether (1) the IJ and BIA applied an erroneous method of assessing credibility; (2) the IJ and BIA failed to provide Mr. Okorafor with an opportunity to present corroborating evidence and used the lack of such evidence to find he lacked credibility; and (3) the IJ and BIA denied him due process by allowing the credibility determination to affect their dispositions. Mr. Okorafor did not present these arguments before the BIA, where he was represented by counsel. Instead, Mr. Okorafor contended CAT deferral was erroneously denied because “[t]he Immigration Judge did not accord proper weight to the graphic proof presented to her.” J.A. 192. Within that context, Mr. Okorafor identified two other issues with the IJ’s decision: (a) the IJ erred in finding there was no medical documentation of the injuries Mr. Okorafor claimed were caused by torture and (b) the IJ erred in finding that certain discrepancies in Mr. Okorafor’s narrative were material. The BIA found these arguments meritless. 1 Heanyi Okorafor is also known as Ifeanyi Okorafor. We refer to him as Mr. Okorafor. 2 Mr. Okorafor originally petitioned for review of whether cancellation of removal was properly denied, but now concedes we cannot review this issue. Pet’r’s Br. 1. 3 Subject-matter jurisdiction existed with the BIA under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(b)(3). 2 We possess “jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) to review a final order of the BIA denying CAT relief.” Myrie v. Attorney Gen., 855 F.3d 509, 515 (3d Cir. 2017).4 But, “the statute constrains our jurisdiction to ‘constitutional claims or questions of law,’ as ‘factual or discretionary determinations are outside of our scope of review.’” Id. (quoting Pierre v. Attorney Gen., 528 F.3d 180, 184 (3d Cir. 2008) (en banc)). Although Mr. Okorafor has “dress[ed] up” his first two contentions “with legal clothing,” they are factual challenges. Pareja v. Attorney Gen., 615 F.3d 180, 187 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Jarbough v. Attorney Gen., 483 F.3d 184, 189 (3d Cir. 2007)). Our decision in Abdulrahman v. Attorney General is instructive. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals