**UN PUBLISHED** 

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 Petition s for Review of Order s of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

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

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Petition s d ismissed by un published 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Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated petitions for review, Said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 de cision 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 jurisdiction

stripping provision, such as whether [ Hmamouch ] [i]s an alien
and whether []he has been convicted of [qualifying crime s 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), we4 can only consider “constitutional claims or questions of law.”

§ 1252 (a)(2)(D); s ee 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. B ecause 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 decis ional process.

PETITION S 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 re tain 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).