Estarlin Valdez Almonte v. Jefferson Sessions III, No. 17-1410 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1410 ESTARLIN RAFAEL VALDEZ ALMONTE, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted: October 13, 2017 Decided: November 1, 2017 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Japheth N. Matemu, MATEMU LAW OFFICE P.C., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Chad Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Matthew Connelly, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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) (“[A]bsent a colorable 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 Almonte 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 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.