Case Name: Rodney SALOMON, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-29
Citations: 207 F. App'x 334
Docket Number: No. 06-1651
Parties: Rodney SALOMON, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 207
Pages: 334–335

Head Matter:
Rodney SALOMON, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-1651.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.
Decided: Nov. 29, 2006.
Rodney Salomon, Petitioner Pro Se. Michele Yvette Francis Sarko, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 86(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rodney Salomon, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge's denial of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. Salomon first contends that the Board erred in denying his appeal without explicitly considering his challenge to the denial of deferral of removal. Construing this as a due process challenge, we find it to be without merit. See Blanco de Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 272, 280-83 (4th Cir.2004). Next, Salomon disputes the Immigration Judge's finding that he does not qualify for deferral of removal. Because Salomon is an aggravated felon, we conclude that we are without jurisdiction to review this claim. See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (West 2005).
We accordingly deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.