NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 11a0180n.06 No. 09-4115 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
S U S H I L LV I D I A T O T A
- M A H A RA J, Petitioner, V. ERI C H . H OL DE R, JR., UN I TE D ST AT ES A T T O R N E Y G E N E RA L, Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW FROM A F I

NAL ORDER OF THE B OARD OF IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS

B e fo re : GU Y, B OG GS, and GI B B ON S, Ci rc uit

Judg e s. BO GGS, Circuit J udg e. In this im m i gration ca se, Sushill Vidi a Tota- Mahar aj, a
nativ e and

c iti zen of Tr ini da d & To ba g o, a

pp e a ls the de c isi on of

the B oa rd of I mmi g ra tio n App e a ls (the “ Boa rd”) denying his c laims for wit hholding of remova l under § 241(b)( 3) of the I mmigration and Nationality

Act (“ I NA”) , 8 U.S.C. § 1 2 3 1 (b )(3), and protec tion under the United N ations Conve nti on

Ag a ins t T or

tur e (“C AT”) , 8 C.F .R. §§ 12 08 .1 6– 12 08 .1 8. B e c a us e To ta -M aha

ra j is subject to remova l on gr ounds that this court lacks jurisdiction to review , we de ny his petition. Tota-Ma hara j entere d the United States in 1993 with o u t b eingadmitted or par oled. He beca me well acqua inted with the United States criminal cour t sy stem, and his rec ord includes thre e felony convictions: rec eipt of stolen proper ty (Mar ch 2008); possession of a c ontrolled substance (F ebrua ry 2007); and e mbezz lement (Nove mber 2006). On October 1, 2008, the De partment ofNo. 09-4115

Tota-Maharaj v. Holder

- 2 - Ho me land

Se c ur ity se rv e d T ota -M aha

ra j w itha No tic e to A

pp e ar ( “ NTA ”) and pla c e d h im i n
remova l proce eding s. The NTAalleg ed Tota- Mahar aj was s u b je c t t o r e mo v a l on thr ee se parate g rounds: 1) ente ring the United States without inspectio n ; 2 ) having a controlled substanc e convic tion; and 3) having committed a cr ime of moral turpitude ( embezzlement and/or rec eipt of stolen prope rty). TotaMahar aj did not and does not ch al l enge the se cha rg es. Instead, he filed applications requesting asylum and withholding of r emoval under § 241(b)( 3) of the I

NA, and pr otection under CAT. The imm ig ratio n ju dg e (“ I J”) de nie d a ll thr e e a pp lic atio ns . She fo un d that “ a ll c ha rg e s o f r e mov a

bil ity
are sustained in this matter by clea r and c onvincingevidenc e,” an d o rd er ed that Tota- Mahar aj be deporte d “on the c harg es conta ined in the Notice to Appe ar.” Tota-Ma hara j appea led the denia l of withhol d i n g o f re moval and CAT prote ction to the Boa rd. The Boa

rd dismiss ed the appea l, affir ming the I J . Tota-Ma

hara j then timely

filed a pe tition for r eview w i t h t h i s court, ar g uing that the Boa rd should be re verse d beca use its fac tual deter minations were not supporte d by substantial evidence
. Con g re ss p ro vid e s th is c ourt wi th exc lus ive jur isd ic tio n to r e vie w a fi na l or de r o f r e mov a l. I NA §§ 242(a )(1) and (a) (5), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(1) and (a )(5) . Howeve r, Cong ress ha s restricte d the re view of r emoval orde rs ag ainst criminal aliens. The I NA provide s: “No cour

t shall have jurisdiction to review a

ny final orde r of r emoval ag ainst an alien who is r emovable by rea son of havingcommitted a cr iminal offe n s e co vere d” under cer tain sections of the I

NA. I NA § 242(a) (2)( C), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2) (C). Criminal offe nses s o desig nated include crimes of moralNo. 09-4115

Tota-Maharaj v. Holder

- 3 - turpitude, I

NA § 212(a )(2) (A)( i)(I ), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)( 2)(A) (1), a nd violation of any

law or regulations r e la

te d to a controlled substanc e. I

NA § 212(a )(2) (A)( i)(I I ), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)( 2)(A) (2). No tw ith sta

nd ingthe jur isd ic tio na l li mit s im po se d b y Con g re ss, c ourt s o f a

pp e a ls r e ta in jurisdiction to revie w “constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for re view,” even in c ases where remova l is order ed based on crimes of moral turpitude or violations involving
c on tr oll e d su

bs tanc e s. I

NA§ 2 42 (a )( 2) (D ), 8 U .S. C. § 12 52 (a )( 2) (D ); see Nwagbo v. Holde r , 571 F.3d 508, 510 (6th Cir. 2009) (“[W] e re tain jurisdiction to consider the limited question of whether th e p et i t i o n er

i s re m o v ab l e a s a m at t er

o f l aw . ”) (qu o t i n g Pa te l v . A sh c ro ft , 4 01 F .3 d 4 00 , 4 06 (6 th Cir. 2005)). The United States a

rgues t hat t his court lacks jurisdiction over Tota-Maha raj’s pe tition for revie w on two of his thre e counts of r emovability —conviction of a

crime involvingmoral turpitude and violation of a controlled subst ance law. I NA § 242(a)(2) (C), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)( 2)(C). Tota

Mahar aj does not cha lleng e his unde rlying criminal convictions, nor does he ra ise any constitutional claims for relief

. He makes no arguments that this c ourt has jurisdiction ove r those two counts, and
no case law has be en found to support su ch a propositi on. Absent an e x ception, this court lac ks jurisdiction to review the or der of remova l based on these two char g es of r emovability
. Although w e do re tain jurisdiction to review remova l or ders based on a cha rg e that an a lien is present in the United States without beingadmitted or paroled, I NA § 212(a )(6) (A)( I ), we need not rea ch the mer its of t his char g e, because Tota-Ma hara j must be removed from the United States on the other two c ounts, which we lack jurisdiction to reve rse or re mand. The pe tition for review is theref ore D ENI ED.