USCA4 Appeal: 22-1083 Doc: 25 Filed: 12/16/2022 Pg: 1 of 5 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-1083 JOSE WILLIAN CASTRO-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of Orders of the Department of Homeland Security. Submitted: September 2, 2022 Decided: December 16, 2022 Before WYNN, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Vincent Rivas-Flores, KONARE LAW, Frederick, Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director, Lance L. Jolley, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1083 Doc: 25 Filed: 12/16/2022 Pg: 2 of 5 PER CURIAM: Jose Willian Castro-Gonzalez (Castro), a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions this court for review of his Final Administrative Removal Order and adverse reasonable fear determination, both of which were issued during Castro’s expedited removal proceedings as a noncitizen convicted of an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 238(b), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b). For the reasons discussed below, we deny the petition for review in part and dismiss it in part. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), we lack jurisdiction, except as provided in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), to review the final order of removal of a noncitizen 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 [Castro] [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, 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 Cucalon v. Barr, 958 F.3d 245, 249 (4th Cir. 2020); see also Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[A]bsent a colorable constitutional claim or question of law, our review of the issue is not authorized by [8 U.S.C. §] 1252(a)(2)(D).”). This jurisdiction-limiting provision does not, however, deprive us of jurisdiction to consider legal and factual challenges to the denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Nasrallah v. Barr, __ U.S. __, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1692 (2020) (holding that the order denying relief under the CAT “does not merge 2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1083 Doc: 25 Filed: 12/16/2022 Pg: 3 of 5 into the final order of removal for purposes of §§ 1252(a)(2)(C)-(D)’s limitation on the scope of judicial review”). Castro’s primary argument is that his Virginia conviction for taking indecent liberties with a child under the age of 15, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-370, does not qualify as an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A) (defining “aggravated felony” to include, among other offenses, “sexual …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals