Case Name: Miguel Angel SAENZ-LOPEZ, also known as Miguel Saenz, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-07
Citations: 684 F. App'x 458
Docket Number: No. 15-60401 Summary Calendar
Parties: Miguel Angel SAENZ-LOPEZ, also known as Miguel Saenz, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 684
Pages: 458–459

Head Matter:
Miguel Angel SAENZ-LOPEZ, also known as Miguel Saenz, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
No. 15-60401 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed April 7, 2017
Barry J. McWhirter, McWhirter Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Memphis, TN, for Petitioner
Craig Alan Newell, Jr., Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Miguel Angel Saenz-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge's (IJ) denial of his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Tor ture (CAT). Saenz-Lopez asserts that the BIA erred in affirming the order of removal because the IJ's adverse credibility-determination was based on an erroneous application of the law. Saenz-Lopez further asserts that the BIA was incorrect in its determination that, aside from objecting to the adverse credibility determination, he had not challenged the IJ's denial of his deferral of removal claim.
Saenz-Lopez was previously convicted of an aggravated felony. We do not have jurisdiction to review his claims regarding the denial of deferral of removal under the CAT because these claims, however labeled, do not actually present either a constitutional issue or a question of law. See Milat v. Holder, 755 F.3d 354, 359 (5th Cir. 2014); Siwe v. Holder, 742 F.3d 603, 613 (5th Cir. 2014); Rodriguez v. Holder, 705 F.3d 207, 210 (5th Cir. 2013); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) & (D). Accordingly, his petition for review is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.