Case: 18-12893 Date Filed: 02/01/2019 Page: 1 of 5 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-12893 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A216-171-749 CARLOS POSADAS PAGUADA, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (February 1, 2019) Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 18-12893 Date Filed: 02/01/2019 Page: 2 of 5 Carlos Posadas Paguada is a native and citizen of Honduras who fears persecution by gang members if he is returned to his home country. He claims that one of his sisters was raped by gang members in Honduras, another sister was kidnapped and beaten, and his family was threatened by the perpetrators of both incidents. The government initiated proceedings to remove Posadas Paguada from the United States in 2017. Among other grounds, the government alleged that he was subject to removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) because he had been convicted of a controlled-substance offense. Posadas Paguada, who was represented by counsel, conceded removability as charged and then, seeking to prevent his removal, filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). An immigration judge (“IJ”) denied these applications after hearing testimony from Posadas Paguada and one of his sisters, and the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision on appeal. So Posadas Paguada was ordered removed to Honduras. Posadas Paguada now petitions this Court for review of the denial of his applications for withholding of removal and CAT relief. He contends that the IJ erred in finding his sister’s testimony not credible and that the evidence established persecution based on his membership in a particular social group. He also argues 2 Case: 18-12893 Date Filed: 02/01/2019 Page: 3 of 5 that he is eligible for CAT relief because he has shown that the Honduran government would not protect him from persecution. The government filed a motion to dismiss Posadas Paguada’s petition for lack of jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), which deprives courts of jurisdiction to review removal orders that are based on certain criminal offenses, including controlled-substance offenses. Posadas Paguada has not responded to the government’s motion. Before we can address Posadas Paguada’s arguments on the merits, we first must ensure we have jurisdiction to do so. We review our subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. Alvarado v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 610 F.3d 1311, 1314 (11th Cir. 2010). Our jurisdiction to review immigration removal orders is limited by statute. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2). As relevant here, § 1252(a)(2)(C) provides that “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),” including an offense “relating to a controlled substance” under § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). Notwithstanding this jurisdictional bar, we retain jurisdiction to review “constitutional claims or questions of law” raised in a petition for review. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Here, § 1252(a)(2)(C)’s ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals