UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1075

AEREMEYES BEYEN KEBEDE,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals

Submitted: July 26, 2011 Decided: August 4, 2011

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aeremeyes Beyen Kebede, Petitioner Pro Se. Paul Thomas 

Cygnarowicz, Trial Attorney, Daniel Eric Goldman, Senior 

Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Aeremeyes Beyen Kebede, a native and citizen of 

Ethiopia, petitions for review an order of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing that part of his appeal 

from the immigration judge’s order finding him removable 

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (2006), as an alien 

convicted of an aggravated felony as defined in 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1101(a)(43)(U) (2006) (defining aggravated felony as including 

an attempt to commit an offense described in § 1101(a)(43)). 

Kebede stood convicted of two counts of attempted petit larceny 

under Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-26, 18.2-96 (2009). Under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1101(a)(43)(G), an aggravated felony includes a theft offense 

for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year. Kebede 

claims that his attempted petit larceny convictions, to which he 

was sentenced to the maximum twelve months’ imprisonment, are 

not aggravated felonies. The Attorney General has filed a 

motion to dismiss contending this court is without jurisdiction. 

We agree with the Attorney General and grant the motion to

dismiss.

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (2006), this court 

lacks jurisdiction, except as provided in 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(a)(2)(D), to review the final order of removal of an 

alien convicted of certain enumerated crimes, including an 

aggravated felony. Under § 1252(a)(2)(C), this Court retains
3

jurisdiction “to review factual determinations that trigger the 

jurisdiction-stripping provision,” such as whether Kebede is 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.” Mbea v. Gonzales, 

482 F.3d 276, 278 n.1 (4th Cir. 2007).

We initially deferred action on the Attorney General’s 

motion to dismiss in order to allow Kebede time to file his 

informal brief. Kebede’s sole issue in the informal brief is 

whether his misdemeanor attempted petit larceny convictions can 

be classified as aggravated felonies. We answer in the 

affirmative.

Both of Kebede’s convictions, although classified 

under state law as misdemeanors, carried maximum twelve month 

sentences. Because Kebede was twice convicted of attempt to 

commit a theft offense that had a term of imprisonment of at 

least one year, he has two aggravated felony convictions. See

Wireko v. Reno, 211 F.3d 833, 835 (4th Cir. 2000) (“Under the 

plain language of this definition, there is no requirement that 

the offense actually have been a felony, as that term is 

conventionally understood.”); see also United States v. Graham, 

169 F.3d 787 (3d Cir. 1999) (misdemeanor petit larceny 
4

conviction was an aggravated felony). Kebede’s reliance on In 

re Crammond, 23 I. & N. Dec. 9 (BIA), vacated on other grounds, 

23 I. & N. Dec. 179 (BIA 2001) is misplaced. In that opinion, 

the Board stated that its holding only applied to aggravated 

felonies under INA § 101(a)(43)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A), 

i.e., “murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor.” Crammond, 23 

I. & N. Dec. at 10. Accordingly, the holding has no relevance 

to Kebede’s attempted petit larceny convictions.

Because Kebede is removable for having been convicted 

of an aggravated felony and he does not raise a constitutional 

claim or a question of law, we grant the Attorney General’s 

motion to dismiss and dismiss the petition for review for lack 

of jurisdiction. We deny as moot Kebede’s motion to stay 

removal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

PETITION DISMISSED