UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2092

EDWARD KWEKU OWUSU,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 12-1113

EDWARD KWEKU OWUSU,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: June 11, 2012 Decided: July 12, 2012

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petitions dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, 

Virginia, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant 

Attorney General, James E. Grimes, Senior Litigation Counsel, 

Gregory M. Kelch, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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, Edward Kweku Owusu, a 

native and citizen of Ghana, petitions for review of an order of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal 

from the immigration judge’s order denying his motion for a 

continuance and finding he was removable for having been 

convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, see Immigration and 

Nationality Act (“INA”) § 237(a)(2)(A)(i); 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) (2006), and not eligible for a waiver of 

inadmissibility under INA § 212(h), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) (2006), 

and from the Board’s order denying reconsideration. Because we 

lack jurisdiction, we dismiss the petitions. 

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (2006), this court 

lacks 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 a 

crime of moral turpitude. Under § 1252(a)(2)(C), this court 

retains jurisdiction to review factual determinations such as 

whether Owusu is an alien and whether he has been convicted of a 

crime of moral turpitude. Ramtulla v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 202, 

203 (4th Cir. 2002). If the court is able to confirm these two 

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

(D), the court can only consider “constitutional claims or 
4

questions of law.” See Mbea v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 276, 278 n.1 

(4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Owusu concedes that he is an alien and that he is 

removable for having a conviction for a crime of moral 

turpitude. Thus, this court can only review constitutional 

claims or questions of law. Owusu challenges the decision to 

deny his request for a third continuance for the purpose of 

pursuing relief in state court from his conviction. Because our 

review of the denial of Owusu’s request for a continuance is for 

abuse of discretion, see Lendo v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 439, 441 

(4th Cir. 2007), he does not raise a reviewable constitutional 

claim or a question of law. 

Because Owusu is an alien found removable for having a 

conviction for a crime of moral turpitude and he does not raise 

a constitutional claim or a question of law regarding the 

Board’s two orders, we lack jurisdiction. Accordingly, we 

dismiss the 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