Gregory Taylor v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-2196 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2196 GREGORY BOBBY TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: January 7, 2014 Decided: January 22, 2014 Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Bobby Taylor, Petitioner Pro Se. William Charles Peachey, Edward Earl Wiggers, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Gregory Bobby Taylor, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) judge s order dismissing denying appeal motion his his to from the reopen. immigration We deny the petition for review. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion and will reverse only if it is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law. Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) (2013). 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), to review certain the final order enumerated of removal crimes, of including an alien convicted an aggravated of felony. Under § 1252(a)(2)(C), we retain jurisdiction to review factual determinations that trigger the jurisdiction-stripping provision, such as whether [Taylor] [i]s an alien and whether []he has been convicted of an aggravated felony. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 202, 203 (4th Cir. 2002). Ramtulla v. If we are able to confirm these two factual determinations, then, under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D), we can claims or questions of law. only consider constitutional See Mbea v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 276, 278 n.1 (4th Cir. 2007). 2 When a person fails to appear for a removal hearing after having received written notice of the hearing, the immigration judge shall order that person removed in absentia if the Government establishes that U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5) (2012). the person is removable. 8 Written notice of the time and place of the hearing is proper if given in person to the alien (or, if personal service is not practicable, through service by mail to the alien any)[.] 8 Government can or U.S.C. to § the alien s 1229(a)(1) establish proper counsel (2012). notice of record, Accordingly, by demonstrating if the that written notice of the time and place of the proceedings and of the consequences of a failure to appear, were provided to the alien or the alien s counsel of record. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.26(c)(2) (2013). Taylor does not contest the finding that he is removable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony. Thus, our review is questions of law. Board s finding Taylor s last to constitutional claims and Taylor does not meaningfully challenge the that known limited notice of address and the hearing that he did was not sent to the inform the immigration court of his new address when he moved. In any event, whether notice was properly sent is a question of fact and not a reviewable constitutional claim or question of law. See Lopez-Dubon v. Holder, 609 F.3d 642, 646-47 (5th Cir. 2010) 3 (whether an alien receives proper notice of a hearing is a factual finding). Taylor s contention that he is eligible for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture does not present a reviewable issue because Taylor did not apply for such relief before the immigration judge. Because we conclude that the Board did not err affirming the immigration judge s order denying the motion to reopen, we deny the petition for review. motion to stay. facts and materials legal before We deny as moot the We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 4
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.
