UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2217

IJAZ WILLIAM,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: May 15, 2015 Decided: June 2, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan M. Fee, Michael E. Ward, ALSTON & BIRD LLP, Washington, 

D.C., for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Acting Assistant 

Attorney General, Song Park, Senior Litigation Counsel, Lindsay 

M. Murphy, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Ijaz William, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions 

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals 

denying his motion to reopen after he affirmatively withdrew his 

appeal and his opposition to the Attorney General’s appeal. We 

dismiss the petition for review.

Under 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 

convicted of certain enumerated crimes, including an aggravated 

felony. We retain jurisdiction “only to review factual 

determinations that trigger the jurisdiction-stripping 

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

[ ]he has been convicted of an aggravated felony.” Ramtulla v. 

Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 202, 203 (4th Cir. 2002). Once the Court 

confirms these two factual determinations, then, under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(a)(2)(C), (D), it can only consider “constitutional 

claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review.” 

8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see Mbea v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 276, 

278 n.1 (4th Cir. 2007).

Because William concedes that he is an alien who was 

removed because he was convicted of an aggravated felony, our 

review is limited to constitutional claims and questions of law. 

William challenges that part of the Board’s order denying 
3

reopening in order to revisit the Board’s order sustaining the 

Attorney General’s appeal from the immigration judge’s order 

granting deferral of removal under the CAT. The Board denied 

reopening to revisit the Board’s prior order because William 

affirmatively withdrew his appeal and his opposition to the 

Attorney General’s appeal, not because he had been removed. 

(Administrative Record 3). Because the Board’s decision in this 

regard was a discretionary one, we do not have jurisdiction. 8 

U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); see also, Larngar v. Holder, 562 F.3d 

71, 75 (1st Cir. 2009) (court lacked jurisdiction, except for 

constitutional claims and questions of law, over denial of 

alien’s motion to reopen, who was removable for having been 

convicted of an aggravated felony). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review. 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 DISMISSED