Sean Glod v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-1794 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1794 SEAN BYRD GLOD, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 18, 2014 Decided: March 21, 2014 Before DIAZ, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Leslie McKay, Assistant Director, Melissa K. Lott, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Sean Byrd Glod, a native of Venezuela and a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Immigration Judge s Appeals denial dismissing of his his request removal under the Convention Against Torture. appeal for from deferral the of For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss the petition for review. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), we lack jurisdiction, except as provided in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), to review the final order of removal of an alien who is removable for having including an been convicted aggravated retain jurisdiction trigger the to of certain felony. Under review factual jurisdiction-stripping enumerated offenses, § 1252(a)(2)(C), determinations provision, such as we that whether [Glod i]s an alien and whether []he has been convicted of an aggravated felony. (4th Cir. 2002). Ramtulla v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 202, 203 Once we confirm these two factual determinations, we may only consider constitutional claims or questions of law. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see also Turkson v. Holder, 667 F.3d 523, 527 (4th Cir. 2012). Because Glod has conceded that he is an alien and that he has been convicted of an aggravated felony, we find that § 1252(a)(2)(C) divests us of jurisdiction over the petition for review. We have reviewed his claims on appeal and find that he 2 raises no colorable questions of law or constitutional claims. Accordingly, we dismiss 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 DISMISSED 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.
