Court Opinion

ID: 9964144
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-27 21:00:25.945586+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:11.637421
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1609      Doc: 52         Filed: 04/26/2024    Pg: 1 of 6

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1609

        PIERRE YASSUE NASHUN RILEY,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: March 27, 2024                                         Decided: April 26, 2024

        Before KING, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Dimitar P. Georgiev-Remmel, Margaret L. Booz, Washington, D.C., Keith
        Bradley, ScheLeese Goudy, SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP, Denver, Colorado, for
        Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Sabatino F. Leo,
        Assistant Director, Corey L. Farrell, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
        DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1609      Doc: 52          Filed: 04/26/2024     Pg: 2 of 6

        PER CURIAM:

               Pierre Yassue Nashun Riley, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions for review of

        an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) vacating the Immigration Judge’s

        (“IJ”) order granting Riley’s application for deferral of removal under the Convention

        Against Torture (“CAT”) and ordering Riley removed to Jamaica. Because we lack

        jurisdiction over Riley’s petition for review, we dismiss it.

                                                      I.

               Riley entered the United States in 1995 on a tourist visa. In 2006, a federal grand

        jury returned an indictment charging Riley with conspiracy to distribute and possess with

        intent to distribute 1000 kilograms or more of marijuana and possession of a firearm in

        furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. A jury found Riley guilty of both offenses, and he

        was sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment.           In January 2021, Riley was granted

        compassionate release.

               Just after Riley’s release from federal prison, the immigration authorities took

        custody of him. On January 26, 2021, the Department of Homeland Security issued a Final

        Administrative Removal Order, explaining that Riley was removable because he had been

        convicted of an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b). Riley expressed a fear of

        returning to Jamaica, and an immigration officer conducted a reasonable fear interview.

        The immigration officer determined that Riley had not established a reasonable fear of

        persecution or torture in Jamaica, but an IJ disagreed and referred Riley to the immigration

        court for withholding-only proceedings.

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1609      Doc: 52         Filed: 04/26/2024      Pg: 3 of 6

               Riley appeared with counsel before the IJ and conceded removability under

        § 1228(b). Although Riley applied for asylum, statutory withholding of removal, and both

        withholding of removal and deferral of removal under CAT, he later conceded that he was

        eligible only for deferral of removal under CAT given his prior convictions.

               After an evidentiary hearing, the IJ granted Riley’s application for deferral of

        removal under CAT. The Department of Homeland Security appealed the IJ’s decision to

        the Board, and a three-member panel of the Board issued a May 31, 2022, unpublished

        decision sustaining the appeal. That is, the Board vacated the IJ’s order granting relief and

        ordered Riley removed to Jamaica.

               On June 3, 2022, Riley petitioned this court for review of the Board’s decision. We

        later placed this appeal in abeyance for the issuance of the mandate in Martinez v. Garland,

        No. 22-1221 (4th Cir.). The mandate in Martinez has issued, and so Riley’s case has been

        removed from abeyance.

                                                     II.

                                                     A.

               “We have an independent obligation to assure ourselves of jurisdiction to decide an

        appeal.” Martinez v. Garland, 86 F.4th 561, 566 (4th Cir. 2023). We generally possess

        jurisdiction to review “a final order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). A noncitizen must

        petition for review within 30 days “of the final order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).

        “The 30-day deadline is mandatory and jurisdictional and is not subject to equitable

        tolling.” Martinez, 86 F.4th at 566 (internal quotation marks omitted). “[O]nce we have a

        final order of removal before us, we can consider along with it ‘all questions of law and

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1609      Doc: 52          Filed: 04/26/2024        Pg: 4 of 6

        fact . . . arising from any action taken or proceeding brought to remove [the] alien from the

        United States.’” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9)) (ellipsis and second alteration in

        original).

               Riley seeks review of the Board’s order vacating the IJ’s order and denying his

        application for deferral of removal under CAT. We recently held in Martinez, however,

        that an order denying CAT relief is not a final order of removal for purposes of

        § 1252(a)(1). Id. at 567. So for us to exercise jurisdiction over the Board’s order denying

        CAT relief, Riley “must identify another eligible order” that is properly before us. Id. But

        Riley cannot do so because he did not timely petition for review of a final order of removal.

        That is, Riley did not petition for review within 30 days of the January 26, 2021, Final

        Administrative Removal Order. So there is no final order of removal properly in front of

        us that would allow us to review the Board’s order denying CAT relief. We thus lack

        jurisdiction over Riley’s petition for review. Id. at 571.

                                                     B.

               Riley offers several arguments in favor of our exercise of jurisdiction, but none

        convinces us. To start, Riley contends that Martinez should not control in this case because

        it involves a Final Administrative Order of Removal issued under § 1228(b), not a

        reinstated removal order, which Martinez addressed. But Riley offers no persuasive

        justification for differentiating between those two types of orders when applying the

        jurisdictional principles delineated in Martinez, and we discern no reason to do so.

               Riley next argues that the Final Administrative Order of Removal was not actually

        final for purposes of § 1252(a)(1) because he applied for asylum. Riley was statutorily

                                                      4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1609      Doc: 52         Filed: 04/26/2024     Pg: 5 of 6

        ineligible for asylum, however, and he effectively withdrew his asylum application during

        his merits hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), (B)(i). Because Riley could not have

        obtained asylum relief, his asylum application did not impact his removability. The Final

        Administrative Order of Removal was thus in fact final despite Riley’s asylum application.

               Finally, Riley maintains that we may exercise jurisdiction over the Board’s order

        affirming the denial of CAT relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(4) (“[A] petition for review

        filed with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this section shall be the sole

        and exclusive means for judicial review of any cause or claim under [CAT.]”). But that

        provision means only that we may review an order denying CAT relief as part of our review

        of a final order of removal. It does not authorize us to review an order denying CAT relief

        without a final order of removal properly before us. See Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683,

        1691 (2020) (citing § 1252(a)(4) and explaining that order denying CAT relief is

        reviewable “as part of the review of a final order of removal” (internal quotation marks

        omitted)); Martinez, 86 F.4th at 567 (recognizing that federal appellate court may review

        order denying CAT relief only as part of its review of final order of removal);

        Bhaktibhai-Patel v. Garland, 32 F.4th 180, 190 n.13 (2d Cir. 2022) (explaining that

        § 1252(a)(4) does not enable federal appellate court to exercise jurisdiction over order

        denying CAT relief “in the absence of a judicially reviewable final order of removal”).

                                                     5
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1609      Doc: 52        Filed: 04/26/2024     Pg: 6 of 6

                                                   III.

              Because we lack jurisdiction, 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

                                                    6