KANJIANI v. ATTORNEY GENERAL (2018)

Abdul Razzak Kanjiani, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of the decision affirming an order that removed him from the United States. The Board of Immigration Appeals agreed with the findings of the immigration judge that Kanjiani was ineligible for asylum because he had been convicted of an aggravated felony, he was not credible, and he failed to establish a well-founded fear of future religious persecution as a Shia Muslim. We dismiss Kanjiani’s petition.

We lack jurisdiction to review Kanjiani’s petition for review. Because Kanjiani conceded that he was removable for committing a crime relating to controlled substances, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), and for committing an aggravated felony, id. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), we lack jurisdiction to review the final order of removal against him. See id. § 1252(a)(2)(C). Although we retain jurisdiction to review “constitutional claims or questions of law,” id. § 1252(a)(2)(D), Kanjiani’s challenges to the adverse credibility determination and to the weight given to his corroborating evidence are “insufficient to state a legal claim over which we have jurisdiction,” Fynn v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 752 F.3d 1250, 1253 (11th Cir. 2014). Kanjiani also contests the finding that his conviction for selling methylenedioxypyrovalerone qualifies as a particularly serious crime, but we will not consider an issue that the Board declined to address on appeal. See Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016).

We DISMISS Kanjiani’s petition for review.

PER CURIAM: