UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2108

SAID HMAMOUCH,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 13-2392

SAID HMAMOUCH,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: April 17, 2014 Decided: April 22, 2014

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petitions dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Said Hmamouch, Petitioner Pro Se. Ada Elsie Bosque, Yamileth G. 

Davila, Nicole N. Murley, Office of Immigration Litigation, 

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

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated petitions for review, Said 

Hmamouch, a native and citizen of Morocco, seeks review of an

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing 

his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision finding him 

ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal and denying his 

application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against 

Torture (No. 13-2108) and the Board’s subsequent order denying 

his motion to reconsider (No. 13-2391). For the reasons 

discussed below, we dismiss the petitions for review.

Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (2012), we lack 

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

(2012), to review the final order of removal of an alien who is 

removable for having been convicted of two or more crimes 

involving moral turpitude, not arising out of a single scheme of 

criminal misconduct, for each of which a sentence of a year or 

longer may be imposed. See Planes v. Holder, 652 F.3d 991, 998 

(9th Cir. 2011). Under § 1252(a)(2)(C), we retain jurisdiction 

“to review factual determinations that trigger the jurisdictionstripping provision, such as whether [Hmamouch] [i]s an alien 

and whether []he has been convicted of [qualifying crimes 

involving moral turpitude].” 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 
4

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).

Our review of the record reveals that Hmamouch has 

conceded that he is a native and citizen of Morocco and that he 

has been convicted of two or more crimes involving moral 

turpitude. Because these crimes clearly did not arise out of a 

common criminal scheme and they each carried a potential 

sentence of more than one year, we find that § 1252(a)(2)(C) 

divests us of jurisdiction.* We therefore grant the Attorney 

General’s pending motion to dismiss the petition for review in 

No. 13-2108 and dismiss both petitions 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.

PETITIONS DISMISSED

 * Hmamouch does not raise any colorable constitutional 

issues or questions of law that would fall within the exception 

set forth in § 1252(a)(2)(D). Although his challenge to the 

agency’s determination that his conviction for unlawful wounding 

constituted a crime of violence would typically be a question of 

law over which we would retain jurisdiction pursuant to 

§ 1252(a)(2)(D), we lack jurisdiction on the ground that 

Hmamouch failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before 

the Board. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012); Massis v. Mukasey, 

549 F.3d 631, 638-40 (4th Cir. 2008).