UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1929

CLEVELAND J. WILSON,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: September 17, 2013 Decided: September 26, 2013

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cleveland J. Wilson, Petitioner Pro Se. Robbin Kinmonth Blaya, 

William Charles Peachey, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Cleveland J. Wilson, a native and citizen of Jamaica,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration 

judge’s order finding that he was removable and that he was not 

eligible for asylum, withholding of removal or deferral of 

removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

Wilson was found removable for having been convicted 

in a Virginia court of sale and distribution of marijuana, in 

violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-248 (LexisNexis Supp. 2013), 

and manufacturing or distributing drugs on school property, in 

violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-255.2 (LexisNexis Supp. 2013). 

It was noted that both convictions were aggravated felonies and 

controlled substance offenses. 

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 an 

aggravated felony or controlled substance violation. Under 

§ 1252(a)(2)(C), we retain jurisdiction “to review factual 

determinations that trigger the jurisdiction-stripping 

provision, such as whether [Wilson] [i]s an alien and whether 

[]he has been convicted of an aggravated felony” or controlled 

substance violation. Ramtulla v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 202, 203 

(4th Cir. 2002). Once we confirm these two factual 
3

determinations, then, under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D), we

can only consider “constitutional claims or questions of law.” 

§ 1252(a)(2)(D); see Turkson v. Holder, 667 F.3d 523, 527 (4th 

Cir. 2012).

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

is removable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony 

at any time after admission. Wilson was first admitted to this 

country in 1989. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act 

(“INA”) § 101(a)(43)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B) (2006), an 

aggravated felony includes “illicit trafficking in a controlled 

substance . . . including a drug trafficking crime (as defined 

in section 924(c) of Title 18)[.]” Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2), 

a drug trafficking crime means any felony punishable under the 

Controlled Substances Act. Under INA § 237(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 

U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), an alien is also removable for having 

been convicted of a controlled substance offense at any time 

after admission. Wilson’s conviction for manufacturing or 

distributing drugs on school property, for which he received a 

five year sentence, is clearly an aggravated felony and a 

controlled substance offense. Thus, we only have jurisdiction 

to consider constitutional claims and questions of law. 

Wilson has failed to raise a colorable constitutional 

claim or a question of law. He contends that he is eligible for 

relief from removal under INA § 212(h), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h)(1)(B) 
4

(2006). Wilson did not raise this claim before the immigration 

judge or the Board. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), “[a] 

court may review a final order of removal only if . . . the 

alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the 

alien as of right[.]” We have noted that “an alien who has 

failed to raise claims during an appeal to the [Board] has 

waived his right to raise those claims before a federal court on 

appeal of the [Board’s] decision.” Farrokhi v. INS, 900 F.2d 

697, 700 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Gonahasa v. INS, 181 F.3d 

538, 544 (4th Cir. 1999). Moreover, we have held that we lack 

jurisdiction to consider an argument not made before the Board. 

Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004). 

Because Wilson did not apply for § 212(h) relief, we do not have 

jurisdiction to review this claim.

Because Wilson does not raise a colorable 

constitutional claim or a question of law, we deny the petition 

for review. We grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED