UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-2340

BAHRAM MOHAMMAD SHAKERI, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, 

 Respondent. 

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

Appeals. 

Submitted: May 19, 2009 Decided: June 12, 2009 

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Bahram Mohammad Shakeri, Petitioner Pro Se. Michael Christopher 

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

for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Bahram Shakeri, a native and citizen of Afghanistan, 

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s 

denial of his application for deferral of removal under the 

Convention Against Torture. For the reasons discussed below, we 

dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. 

 Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (2006), we lack 

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 offenses 

covered in § 1182(a)(2) of the immigration statutes. Because 

Shakeri was found removable for having been convicted of a 

controlled substance offense as defined in 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) (2006), under § 1252(a)(2)(C), we have 

jurisdiction “to review factual determinations that trigger the 

jurisdiction-stripping provision, such as whether [Shakeri] [i]s 

an alien and whether []he has been convicted of [a controlled 

substance offense].” 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 

can only consider “constitutional claims or questions of law.” 

See Mbea v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 276, 278 n.1 (4th Cir. 2007). 

2 
 Because we find that Shakeri is indeed an alien who 

has been convicted of a controlled substance offense, 

§ 1252(a)(2)(C) divests us of jurisdiction over the petition for 

review, except to the extent that Shakeri raises a 

constitutional issue or question of law. We find that Shakeri’s 

challenges to the denial of his request for deferral under the 

Convention Against Torture are factual issues over which we 

clearly lack jurisdiction. See Saintha v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 

243, 249-50 (4th Cir. 2008) (finding that determinations 

regarding government acquiescence in assessing CAT claims are 

factual, not legal, in nature and “[§] 1252(a)(2)(C) of the REAL 

ID Act prohibits our review of such factual determinations of 

the BIA, and we are thus unable to review [the] petition on the 

merits”). 

 Finally, Shakeri argues that the immigration judge 

erred in treating his unlawful wounding conviction as an 

aggravated felony. Although this claim is a question of law 

over which we would typically retain jurisdiction pursuant to 

§ 1252(a)(2)(D), we find that we nonetheless lack jurisdiction 

because Shakeri failed to raise this issue before the Board. 

See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2006); Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 

631, 638-40 (4th Cir. 2008). 

 Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

3 
4 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DISMISSED