### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-60502 Summary Calendar

JORGE GEOVANNY MEDINA,
Petitioner

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A094 251 136

Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jorge Geovanny Medina, a native and citizen o f Honduras, was found removable under 8 U.S.C. § 118 2 ( a)(2)(A)(i)(II), as an alien convicted of a controlled substance o f fense, and under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. He applied for withholding of removal and for protection from removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). M edina p etitions for review of the B oard of I mmigration U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D March 19, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-60502 Document: 00512179956 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/19/2013No. 12-60502

Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order denying his applications for relief from removal. Pursuant to 8 U .S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), this c ourt l acks jurisdiction to review M e d ina’s claims for withholding of removal and CAT protection. Th e jurisdictional bar o f § 1252(a)(2)(C) provides that “no court s h a l l have jurisdiction to review any f inal order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed a cri m i nal offense” including controlled substance offenses under § 1 182(a)(2). Section 1 182(a) ( 2)(A)(i)(II) provides that an alien who commits “a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation o f a State, the Uni t e d S t a t e s, or a foreign country relating to a c ontrolled substance (as defined in section 802 of Title 21)” is inadmissible.” An exception, however, mandates this court r etain j urisdiction for review of “constitutional claims or questions of law” raised in a p e tition for review filed in an appropriate court of app e a l s . 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see Hakim v . Holder , 628 F.3d 151, 155 (5th C ir. 2010). “We do, of c ourse, also have jurisdiction to determine our own jurisdiction.” Marquez–Marquez v. Gonzales , 455 F.3d 548, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). That a n alien is not eligible for withholding of removal o r relief under the CAT are findings of fact reviewed for substantial evidence. Zhang v. Gonzales , 432 F.3d 339, 344-4 5 ( 5 t h C i r. 2 0 05). Medina c ontends he has shown entitlement to withholding of removal a nd protection under the CAT b ecause he is in danger of future persecution and torture by criminal gangs i n Honduras if removed there. His contentions constitute a disagreement with the factual determinations of the IJ and BIA. His petition does not raise any constitutional claims or questions of law. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review the final order of removal. See Alwan v. Ashcroft , 388 F.3d 507, 515 (5th Cir. 2004). DISMISSED.

2 Case: 12-60502 Document: 00512179956 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/19/2013