
    Ehiabhi EGBOH, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent.
    No. 16-1603
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: December 15, 2016
    Decided: January 4, 2017
    Randall L. Johnson, Johnson & Associates, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director, Vanessa M. Otero, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before TRAXLER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ehiabhi Egboh,, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of the immigration judge’s order concurring with an asylum officer’s determination that Egboh failed to establish a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Nigeria. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(g)(1) (2012).

Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (2012), we lack jurisdiction to review the final order of removal of an alien convicted of certain enumerated crimes, including an aggravated felony. We retain jurisdiction only over constitutional claims or questions of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012); see Turkson v. Holder, 667 F.3d 523, 526-27 (4th Cir. 2012); Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[Ajbsent a color-able constitutional claim or question of law, our review of the issue is not authorized by [8 U.S.C. § ] 1252(a)(2)(D).”).

Upon review, we find that the claims raised by Egboh are not sufficiently color-able to invoke this court’s jurisdiction. See Lumataw v. Holder, 582 F.3d 78, 84 (1st Cir. 2009) (“To form the basis of judicial review under § 1252(a)(2)(D), the alleged underlying constitutional or legal question must be colorable; that is, the argument advanced must, at the very least, have some potential validity.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. 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  