#### Sergio SOSA-SANCHEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bonita S. MOSLEY, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-56375

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 16, 2018 * Pasadena, California

Filed March 7, 2018

David Lee Menninger, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Hilary Potashner, Federal Public Defender, FPDCA—Federal Public Defender’s Office (Los Angeles), Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant

L. Ashley Aull, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Michael Anthony Brown, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jeffer Mangels Butler *&*Mitchell LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee

Before: MeKEOWN and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and MENDOZA,** District Judge.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Salvador Mendoza, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Sergio Sosa-Sanchez appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. A federal prisoner challenging the legality of a sentence must generally do so by motion raised in the sentencing court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Section 2255 contains an exception—known as the “escape hatch” or “savings clause”—-which allows petitioners to file a habeas corpus petition pursuant to § 2241 to contest a federal sentence where the remedy under § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” *Id.*§ 2255(e); *see also Hernandez v. Campbell,*204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000). Because Sosa-Sanchez cannot invoke § 2255’s escape hatch, he.was. not entitled to proceed under § 2241, and we must dismiss his petition.

“A petition meets the escape hatch criteria-where a petitioner (1) makes a claim of actual.innocence, and (2) has not had an unobstructed procedural shot at presenting that claim.” *Alaimalo v. United States,*645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011). In determining whether a petitioner had an unobstructed procedural shot to pursue his claim, the court considers: “(1) whether the legal basis for petitioner’s claim ‘did not arise until after he had exhausted his direct appeal and first § 2255 motion’; and (2) whether the law changed ‘in any way relevant’ to petitioner’s claim after that first § 2255 motion.” *Harrison v. Ollison,*519 F.3d 952, 960 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting *Ivy v. Pontesso,*328 F.3d 1057, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2003)).

Sosa-Sanchez’s petition fails because he cannot establish that he lacked an unobstructed procedural shot to bring the petition within the one-year § 2255 limitations period. Sosa-Sanchez is currently serving *758time on a 2015 conviction for illegal reentry based on the reinstatement of a 1995 deportation order. The substance of Sosa-Sanchez’s § 2241 petition challenges his 2013 illegal reentry conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 on the grounds that his initial deportation order was invalid because it relied on a state law conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm under California Penal Code § 12021(c)(1), which is not a categorical match for a federal removal firearms offense. While Sosa-Sanchez makes a colorable argument regarding the validity of his conviction, the legal basis for this argument—the Supreme Court’s decision in *Moncrieffe v. Holder,*569 U.S. 184, 133 S.Ct. 1678, 185 L.Ed.2d 727 (2013)—was available to him during the one-year § 2255 limitations period. •

Because Sosa-Sanchez’s petition did not qualify for § 2255’s escape hatch, the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the petition.

The district court’s decision is VACATED and Sosa-Sanchez’s petition is DISMISSED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.