* Pursuant to 5TH 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60275

Summary Calendar

ENYEW MANAYE HAILU,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, US ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A46 260 091

Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Enyew Manaye Hailu petitions for review of a final order of removal of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that affirmed the determination that he

was removable as an aggravated felon pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)

and the denial of his applications for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158, withholding

of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and protection under the Convention

Against Torture, 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c), 1208.18.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 21, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60275

2

Although the respondent does not argue it, whether an appeal is moot is

a jurisdictional issue because it implicates the Constitution’s Article III

requirement of a live case or controversy. We must raise the question of

mootness sua sponte, and we review the question de novo. United States v.

Lares-Meraz, 452 F.3d 352, 355 (5th Cir. 2006). Hailu’s conviction for an

aggravated felony has the collateral consequence of making him permanently

inadmissible to the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(A)(i) - (ii) (barring

re-entry of aliens removed for conviction of an aggravated felony). This

collateral consequence prevents this case from being moot. See Alwan v.

Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 507, 510-11 (5th Cir. 2004) (holding that due to the collateral

consequence of permanent inadmissibility, deportation did not render the case

moot).

Congress has expressly barred judicial review of final orders of removal

against an alien who is removable as an aggravated felon. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(2)(C). After the enactment of the REAL ID Act of 2005, we now have

jurisdiction, in cases otherwise covered by § 1252(a)(2)(C), to review questions

of law or constitutional claims raised upon a petition for review. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(2)(D).

Hailu challenges his conviction for indecency with a child. He does not

argue that it is not an aggravated felony. He argues that he was denied his

constitutional rights because his attorney misled him and forced him to plead

guilty by telling him that if he did not plead guilty, the INS would take away his

green card. Hailu’s challenge to his state court conviction is not appropriate in

this petition for review. A final conviction “provides a valid basis for deportation

unless itis overturned in a judicial post-conviction proceeding.” Zinnanti v. INS,

651 F.2d 420, 421 (5th Cir. 1981). Hailu has not alleged that his conviction has

been overturned, and he may not collaterally attack the validity of his conviction

in this immigration proceeding. See Brown v. INS, 856 F.2d 728, 731 (5th Cir.

1988).
No. 07-60275

3

The other arguments in Hailu’s brief challenge the findings of fact made

by the Immigration Judge (IJ) in denying his claims for withholding of removal.

He states that he is seeking review because he disagrees with the decisions of

the IJ and the BIA, and he contends that he has presented strong evidence and

has met his burden of proof. He states that he has “Constitutional Claims,” but

he does not state what they are. Hailu’s arguments do not raise questions of law

or constitutional claims. We hold that we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s

final order of removal. See Alwan, 388 F.3d at 515. Because we lack jurisdiction

to review the final order of removal, the petition for review is DISMISSED.