Opinion
No. 18-2117
05-15-2019
AHMED-RACHID GBOLAGA PIO, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Andrew N. O'Malley, Senior Litigation Counsel, Matt A. Crapo, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Andrew N. O'Malley, Senior Litigation Counsel, Matt A. Crapo, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Ahmed-Rachid Gbolaga Pio, a native and citizen of Benin, petitions for review of the immigration judge's order concurring with an asylum officer's determination that Pio failed to establish a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Benin. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(g)(1) (2018).
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 § 1252(a)(2)(D).").
It is undisputed that Pio is removable as an aggravated felon.
Although we have jurisdiction under § 1252(a)(2)(D) to consider Pio's claims that he was denied due process, see Nardea v. Sessions, 876 F.3d 675, 681 (4th Cir. 2017) (stating elements of due process claim in removal proceedings), these claims are without merit as Pio fails to show he was prejudiced by any alleged defects in the removal proceedings. We will find prejudice "only when the rights of an alien have been transgressed in such a way as is likely to impact the results of the proceedings." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, we deny 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 DENIED