**UN PUBLISHED** 

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

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

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Petition s d ismissed by un published 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated petitions, Edward Kweku Owusu, a native and citizen of Ghana, petition s for review of an order of the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 I mmigration 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.

U nder 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a)(2)(C) (2006), this c ourt lacks jurisdiction, except as provided in 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(2)(D) (2006), t o 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), t his court retains jurisdiction to review factual determinations such as

whether Owusu is an alien and whe ther he has been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude. Ramtulla v. Ashcroft , 301 F.3d 202 , 203 (4th Cir. 2002). If the c ourt is able to confirm these two factual determinations, then, under 8 U. S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D), the c ourt can only consider “c onstitutional claims or4 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 deni al 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 becaus e the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION S D ISMISSED