
    Alex Noe VERGARA-MALDONADO, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-60516
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 12, 2014.
    Anne Elizabeth Doebler, Esq., Buffalo, NY, for Petitioner.
    Tangerlia Cox, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Alex Noe Vergara-Maldonado, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions this court for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily affirming the denial of his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The immigration judge (IJ) determined that Vergara-Maldonado was subject to removal based upon convictions for a controlled substance offense and an aggravated felony offense. The IJ further determined that the testimonial and documentary evidence presented by Ver-gara-Maldonado was insufficient to establish his eligibility for withholding of removal and CAT relief.

In his petition for review, Vergara-Mal-donado does not challenge the basis for the underlying removal order. Rather, he argues that the IJ’s decision denying him relief was erroneous and that the BIA erroneously applied the summary affir-mance procedures set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4).

An alien’s eligibility for withholding of removal and CAT relief is a factual conclusion that is ordinarily reviewed for substantial evidence. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir.2005). Because Vergara-Maldonado is removable due to convictions for an aggravated felony and a controlled substance offense, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider whether substantial evidence supported his withholding of removal and CAT claims. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); Escudero-Arciniega v. Holder, 702 F.3d 781, 785 (5th Cir.2012). With respect to Vergara-Maldonado’s argument that his case should not have been summarily affirmed because it did not meet the regulatory requirements set forth in § 1003.1(e)(4), we decline review pursuant to Garcia-Melendez v. Ashcroft, 351 F.3d 657, 662 (5th Cir.2003).

Accordingly, the petition for review is DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction and DENIED in part. 
      
       Pursuant to 5tii Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     