UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-2399

JEAN MURAT MONTREVIL, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, 

 Respondent. 

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

Appeals. 

Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: September 11, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Joshua E. Bardavid, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony 

West, Assistant Attorney General, Anh-Thu P. Mai-Windle, Senior 

Litigation Counsel, Julie M. Iversen, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Jean Murat Montrevil, a native and citizen of Haiti, 

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen. For the reasons 

discussed below, we deny the petition for review. 

 Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (2006), we lack 

jurisdiction, except as provided in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) 

(2006), to review the final order of removal of an alien 

convicted of certain enumerated crimes, including offenses 

covered in § 1182(a)(2) of the immigration statutes. Because 

Montrevil was found removable for having been convicted of a 

controlled substance offense pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), under § 1252(a)(2)(C), we have 

jurisdiction “to review factual determinations that trigger the 

jurisdiction-stripping provision, such as whether [Montrevil] 

[i]s an alien and whether []he has been convicted of [a 

controlled substance offense].” 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.” 

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

 Because we find that Montrevil is indeed an alien who 

has been convicted of a controlled substance offense, 

§ 1252(a)(2)(C) divests us of jurisdiction over the petition for 

2 
3 

review absent a colorable constitutional claim or question of 

law. Although Montrevil raises several questions of law in his 

petition for review, we find that his claims are squarely 

foreclosed by our recent decision in Zheng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 

647 (4th Cir. 2009).∗

 Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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 DENIED

 ∗

 Additionally, to the extent that Montrevil argues that the 

Board committed legal error in finding that he failed to 

demonstrate changed country conditions, we find that the Board 

correctly concluded that Montrevil merely “assert[ed] a fear of 

a personal nature, not one relating to changes in Haiti.” See

Zhang v. Att’y Gen., __ F.3d __, 2009 WL 1856787 (11th Cir. June 

30, 2009) (“An alien cannot circumvent the requirement of 

changed country conditions by demonstrating only a change in her 

personal circumstances.”).