Case ID: f-appx_237/html/0937-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edgar Enrique MORENO-ORTIZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-60789
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 28, 2007.
    Edgar Enrique Moreno-Ortiz, Oakdale, LA, pro se.
    David V. Bernal, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Andrew Cunningham MacLachlan, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Trey Lund, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office Director, New Orleans, LA, Margaret M. Kolbe, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY, for Respondent.
    Alberto R. Gonzales, Washington, DC, pro se.
    Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Edgar Enrique Moreno-Ortiz, a native and citizen of Columbia, petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Because Moreno-Ortiz is alien removable as an aggravated felon, this court’s jurisdiction over his petition for review is limited solely to constitutional claims or questions of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D).

Moreno-Ortiz argues that the IJ applied the incorrect legal standard to his claim for relief under the CAT and that his substantive due process rights under the state-created danger exception will be violated if he is removed to Columbia.

This court previously held that it did not have jurisdiction to review Moreno-Ortiz’s first petition for review and Moreno-Ortiz has not demonstrated why his current constitutional claim could not have been presented in his first petition. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(2); see Medina v. INS, 993 F.2d 499, 503 (5th Cir.1993). This court is therefore without jurisdiction to review Moreno-Ortiz’s constitutional claim.

We further find that the IJ clearly set forth the proper legal standard to be applied in determining whether Moreno-Ortiz is entitled to protection under the CAT. Because the IJ articulated the correct standard, Moreno-Ortiz has failed to raise a true question of law over which this court has jurisdiction. See Delgado-Reynua v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 596, 599-600 (5th Cir.2006).

Accordingly, Moreno-Ortiz’s petition for review is DISMISSED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.