IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

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 of Honduras, was found

removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), as an alien convicted of a

controlled substance offense, 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). Medina petitions for review of the Board of Immigration

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 19, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 12-60502 Document: 00512179956 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/19/2013
No. 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 court lacks jurisdiction to review

Medina’s claims for withholding of removal and CAT protection. The

jurisdictional bar of § 1252(a)(2)(C) provides that “no court shall have

jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who is

removable by reason of having committed a criminal offense” including

controlled substance offenses under § 1182(a)(2). Section 1182(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 of a State, the United States, or a foreign

country relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of Title 21)”

is inadmissible.” An exception, however, mandates this court retain jurisdiction

for review of “constitutional claims or questions of law” raised in a petition for

review filed in an appropriate court of appeals. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see

Hakim v. Holder, 628 F.3d 151, 155 (5th Cir. 2010). “We do, of course, also have

jurisdiction to determine our own jurisdiction.” Marquez–Marquez v. Gonzales,

455 F.3d 548, 554 (5th Cir. 2006).

That an alien is not eligible for withholding of removal or relief under the

CAT are findings of fact reviewed for substantial evidence. Zhang v. Gonzales,

432 F.3d 339, 344-45 (5th Cir. 2005). Medina contends he has shown

entitlement to withholding of removal and protection under the CAT because he

is in danger of future persecution and torture by criminal gangs in 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