UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2499 NICHOLAS AVASKAR SEIVWRIGHT, a/k/a Nicolas Nicholas, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent, ------------------------------------------ CAPITAL AREA IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS COALITION, Amicus Supporting Petitioner. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: September 3, 2019 Decided: September 18, 2019 Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maureen A. Sweeney, Supervising Attorney, Virginia Giannini, Student Attorney, Bennett Procter, Student Attorney, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND FRANCIS KING CAREY SCHOOL OF LAW, Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Stephanie E. Beckett, Trial Attorney, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Claudia R. Cubas, Mark Feldman, Jenny Kim, CAPITAL AREA IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS COALITION, Washington, D.C.; Erica Hashimoto, Director, Marcella Coburn, Dylan Byrd, Student Counsel, Rebecca Deucher, Student Counsel, Dominick Schumacher, Student Counsel, Appellate Litigation Program, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER, Washington, D.C. for Amicus Curiae. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Nicholas Avaskar Seivwright, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying Seivwright’s motion to reopen his removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (2012), we lack jurisdiction, except as provided in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012), 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 [Seivwright] [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 Turkson v. Holder, 667 F.3d 523, 527 (4th Cir. 2012). This jurisdictional bar extends to limit our review of an order denying a criminal alien’s motion to reopen his removal proceedings. Oxygene v. Lynch, 813 F.3d 541, 544-45 (4th Cir. 2016). Seivwright does not now, and did not in the underlying motion to reopen, contest either his alienage or his removability for having been convicted of aggravated felonies. While Seivwright raises a number of issues in his opening brief, upon review, we agree with the Attorney General that these issues do not present constitutional claims or colorable issues of law under § 1252(a)(2)(D) but, rather, raise factual disputes relative to the three factual findings underpinning the Board’s ruling that Seivwright’s motion to reopen was 3 time-barred. See id. at 545 (explaining that we “must analyze each argument” a criminal alien raises in response to the denial of a motion to reopen “to determine whether it presents a legal or constitutional question, or raises only a ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals