Case Name: Estarlin Rafael Valdez ALMONTE, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-01
Citations: 699 F. App'x 282
Docket Number: No. 17-1410
Parties: Estarlin Rafael Valdez ALMONTE, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 699
Pages: 282–283

Head Matter:
Estarlin Rafael Valdez ALMONTE, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 17-1410
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: October 13, 2017
Decided: November 1, 2017
Japheth N. Matemu, MATEMU LAW OFFICE P.C., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Chad Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Can-daux, Assistant Director, Matthew Con-nelly, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Estarlin Rafael Valdez Almonte, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge's decision denying his request for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (2012), we lack jurisdiction to review the final order of removal of an alien convicted of certain enumerated crimes, including an aggravated felony. We retain jurisdiction only over constitutional claims or questions of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012); see Turkson v. Holder, 667 F.3d 523, 526-27 (4th Cir. 2012); Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358 (4th Cir. 2009) ("[Ajbsent a color-able constitutional claim or question of law, our review of the issue is not authorized by [8 U.S.C. § ] 1252(a)(2)(D).").
Upon review, we find that Valdez Al-monte has not raised any reviewable issues. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. 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