Ryan Rattan v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 09-2417 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2417 RYAN DENSEL RATTAN, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: November 10, 2010 Decided: December 8, 2010 Before KING, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marc Seguinót, SEGUINà T & ASSOCIATES, Dunn Loring, Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Blair T. O Connor, Assistant Director, Joseph D. Hardy, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ryan Densel Rattan, a native and citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration immigration Appeals ( Board ) judge s dismissing decision finding his him appeal from removable as the an aggravated felon, denying his motion to terminate proceedings, and finding him ineligible for relief from removal. For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss the petition for review. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (2006), we lack jurisdiction, except as provided in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2006), to review the final order of removal of an alien who is removable for having been convicted crimes, including aggravated felonies. of certain enumerated Because Rattan was found removable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony, under § 1252(a)(2)(C), we have jurisdiction to review factual determinations that trigger the jurisdiction-stripping provision, such as whether [Rattan] [i]s an alien and whether []he has been convicted of an aggravated felony. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 202, 203 (4th Cir. 2002). these two factual § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D), determinations, we can claims or questions of law. only then, consider Ramtulla v. Once we confirm under 8 U.S.C. constitutional See Mbea v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 276, 278 n.1 (4th Cir. 2007). 2 Although Rattan concedes that he is a native and citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, he denies the allegation that he is removable as an aggravated felon. Based on our review of the record, we find that Rattan s convictions under Virginia law for petit larceny were for theft offense[s] . . . for which the term of imprisonment [is] at least one year and were therefore aggravated felonies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) (2006). Accordingly, Rattan is indeed an alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony, and § 1252(a)(2)(C) divests us of jurisdiction over the petition for review. * We therefore grant the Attorney General s motion to dismiss and dismiss the petition for review. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials We dispense with legal contentions before the court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DISMISSED * We note that Rattan does not raise any colorable questions of law or constitutional issues that would fall within the exception set forth in § 1252(a)(2)(D). 3
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.
