Nabil Ahmed Aissi v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1848
NABIL AHMED AISSI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-2074
NABIL AHMED AISSI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: January 16, 2014 Decided: February 3, 2014
Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

-- 1 of 5 --

2
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
General, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Jennifer Paisner
Williams, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration
Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 5 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Nabil Ahmed Aissi, a native and citizen of Morocco,
petitions for review of orders of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s order and denying his motion for reconsideration. We
deny the petitions for review.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (2012), we lack
jurisdiction, except as provided in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)
(2012), to review the final order of removal of an alien
convicted of certain enumerated crimes, including an aggravated
felony. Under § 1252(a)(2)(C), we retain jurisdiction “to
review factual determinations that trigger the jurisdiction-
stripping provision, such as whether [Aissi] [i]s an alien and
whether []he has been convicted of an aggravated felony.”
Ramtulla v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 202, 203 (4th Cir. 2002). Once
we confirm these two factual determinations, then, under 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D), we can only consider
“constitutional claims or questions of law.” § 1252(a)(2)(D);
see Turkson v. Holder, 667 F.3d 523, 526-27 (4th Cir. 2012).
Aissi concedes that he is a native and citizen of
Morocco and he does not challenge the finding that he is
removable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony.
See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(5), (7). Thus, we only have

-- 3 of 5 --

4
jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and questions of
law.
Because Aissi is removable for having been convicted
of an aggravated felony, we will not review his challenge to the
finding that he is also removable for having been convicted of
two crimes of moral turpitude that did not arise out of a single
scheme of criminal conduct. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24,
25 (1976) (as a general rule courts and agencies are not
required to make findings on issues the decision of which is
unnecessary to the results they reach).
Aissi’s claim that the Board erred in failing to
utilize the correct legal standard in determining that he did
not have a clear probability of persecution is really a question
of fact which we do not have jurisdiction to review. The Board
found that Aissi was not credible and that he did not present
sufficient corroborating evidence regarding his claim that his
parents were the victims of government-sponsored persecution.
It was also found that the record did not support a finding that
Aissi faced a likelihood of persecution because of either his
drinking problem or his alleged conversion to Christianity.
Thus, the claim that the Board did not consider whether he will
be targeted because of an imputed political opinion or a pattern
or practice of persecuting similarly situated persons ignores
the Board’s factual findings which are not reviewable.

-- 4 of 5 --

5
Aissi also challenges that Board’s finding that he did
not establish that it is more likely than not that he will be
tortured in Morocco is a factual question over which this Court
does not have jurisdiction. See Saintha v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d
243, 248-50 (4th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, we deny the petitions 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.
PETITIONS DENIED

-- 5 of 5 --