NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-4004

___________

FILMORE JOHNSON,

Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

 Respondent

____________________________________

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(Agency No. A044-738-252)

Immigration Judge: Honorable Leo A. Finston

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

July 16, 2013

Before: SMITH, GREENAWAY, JR., and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 25, 2013)

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM

Filmore Johnson petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals. For the reasons below, we will dismiss the petition for review.

Johnson, a native of Liberia, became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 
2

1994. In 2001, Johnson pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute it 

within 1000 feet of school property, aggravated assault, conspiracy, and weapons charges. In 

2011, he was charged with removability as an alien convicted of a crime involving moral 

turpitude and as one who had committed a controlled substance offense. An Immigration 

Judge (IJ) sustained the charges of removability. Johnson applied for deferral of removal 

under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He argued that he would be tortured in Liberia 

due to his tribal affiliation, his potential imprisonment as a criminal deportee, and his father’s 

role in a previous Liberian Government.1 After a hearing at which Johnson was represented by 

counsel, the IJ denied relief. 

On appeal, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s determination that Johnson would not be tortured 

if removed to Liberia. It agreed with the IJ that he had not corroborated his claim with 

testimony of his father for purposes of establishing that he would be tortured based on his tribal 

affiliation and that he would be detained in conditions created with the specific intent to 

torture. Johnson filed a petition for review, and the Government filed a motion to dismiss.

The Government argues that the petition for review should be dismissed because 

Johnson was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude and a controlled substance 

offense, see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2), and has not raised any constitutional claims or questions of 

law. We lack jurisdiction to review the final orders of removal of aliens with such convictions, 

8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), but retain jurisdiction over constitutional claims or questions of law. 

8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).

 

1

In his brief, Johnson disclaims relying on his tribal affiliation or possible detention as a basis 

for CAT relief. Brief at 8 n.4.
3

In his brief, Johnson argues the BIA erred as a matter of law in affirming the IJ’s 

finding that Johnson had failed to meet his burden of proof because he had failed to provide 

corroboration. However, he concedes that the BIA may require credible applicants to supply 

corroborating evidence. See Pet. Brief at 11; Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542, 554 (3d Cir. 

2001); Chukwu v. Att’y Gen., 484 F.3d 185, 191-92 (3d Cir. 2007); 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii) (“Where the trier of fact determines that the applicant should provide 

evidence that corroborates otherwise credible testimony, such evidence must be provided 

unless the applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the evidence.”). 

Arguments that the IJ or BIA “incorrectly weighed evidence, failed to consider evidence or 

improperly weighed equitable factors are not questions of law under § 1252(a)(2)(D).” 

Jarbough v. Att’y Gen., 483 F.3d 184, 189 (3d Cir. 2007). The BIA’s determination that 

Johnson had not met his burden of proof without corroboration is a factual determination that 

we lack jurisdiction to review.

Johnson also argues that the testimony and evidence he submitted was sufficient to meet 

his burden of proof and that certain factual findings made by the IJ and adopted by the BIA 

were unsupported by the record. However, as noted above, we lack jurisdiction to address 

Johnson’s challenge to the IJ’s factual findings. Johnson does not contest that this is a factual 

issue. Brief at 9 (“Findings of fact, as are raised in Point II of the Argument . . .”). 

Because Johnson has not raised any colorable questions of law or constitutional issues, 

we will grant the Government’s motion to dismiss the petition for review.