Harry Osore v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1464
HARRY OSORE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 13, 2014 Decided: June 19, 2014
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harry Osore, Petitioner Pro Se. Channah F. Norman, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Harry Osore, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s
order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, withholding under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”) and cancellation of removal. We deny the petition for
review.
Osore was found removable for having been convicted of
two crimes of moral turpitude not arising out of a single scheme
of conduct, Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”)
§ 237(a)(2)(A)(ii). 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 two or more crimes involving moral turpitude not
arising out of a single scheme of criminal conduct, for which a
sentence of one year or longer may be imposed. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) (2012). We retain jurisdiction “to review
factual determinations that trigger the jurisdiction-stripping
provision, such as whether [Osore] [i]s an alien and whether
[]he has been convicted of” two or more crimes involving moral
turpitude. Ramtulla v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 202, 203 (4th Cir.
2002). Once we confirm these two factual determinations, then
we may only consider “constitutional claims or questions of

-- 2 of 4 --

3
law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see Mbea v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d
276, 278 n.1 (4th Cir. 2007).
Osore does not challenge the finding that he is an
alien and that he was convicted of two crimes involving moral
turpitude.* Thus, we may only consider constitutional claims or
questions of law. While Osore attempts to raise reviewable
claims, we conclude that none of the claims have merit.
Osore challenges that part of the order directing that
he be removed to Switzerland. We note that Osore admitted he
was a citizen of Switzerland and designated Switzerland as the
country of removal. After Osore tried to retract his
declaration, the immigration judge directed that Kenya be the
alternate country of removal. This is entirely consistent with
the statute. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2)(A)(i), (D) (2012). We
further conclude that there is no merit to Osore’s claim that he
is not subject to removal proceedings because he was admitted
under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(g)(iv) (2012).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
* While Osore may be presently challenging the convictions
in state court, there is no indication that the convictions have
been vacated or otherwise called into question.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 4 of 4 --