NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-1590

___________

ELIE MICHEL HANNA,

Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

Respondent

____________________________________

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(Agency No. A094-166-143)

Immigration Judge: Honorable Susan G. Roy

____________________________________

Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

on August 8, 2012

Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: October 11, 2012)

_________

O P I N I O N

_________

PER CURIAM

Elie Michel Hanna seeks review of the denial of his motion to reopen immigration 

proceedings. Lacking jurisdiction, we will dismiss the petition for review.

Hanna is a native and citizen of Lebanon. In 2008, he was convicted of a New 
2

Jersey drug offense (a violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:35-7). Hanna was thereafter

charged with being removable from the United States as an aggravated felon (8 U.S.C. 

§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)). Appearing before an immigration judge (IJ), Hanna conceded the 

charges against him and declined to request relief from removal, at which point the IJ 

entered an order of removal and noted that both parties had waived their appellate rights. 

Some time later, Hanna filed a motion proceedings, arguing that his New Jersey 

trial counsel had been ineffective and pointing out that he had recently initiated a state 

collateral attack on his conviction. The IJ denied the motion to reopen and the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Hanna’s appeal. Hanna now seeks review in this 

Court.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) to review final orders of removal; 

however, that jurisdiction is not without limits. Because Hanna is a criminal alien 

removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), we may review only “constitutional 

claims or questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)–(D). These claims and questions 

must be “colorable,” meaning they cannot be insubstantial, frivolous, or based on an 

otherwise-unreviewable ground “dressed up” in legal clothing. See Pareja v. Att’y Gen., 

615 F.3d 180, 187 (3d Cir. 2010). Another limitation on our jurisdiction, 8 U.S.C. §

1252(g), prevents the review of claims “arising from the decision or action by the 

Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal 

orders.” Finally, we cannot review claims that were not raised before the agency. 8 

U.S.C. § 1252(d); Hoxha v. Holder, 559 F.3d 157, 159 n.3 (3d Cir. 2009). 
3

None of the claims raised in this petition for review is colorable; indeed, each

suffers from readily identifiable jurisdictional defects. First, Hanna assails the 

ineffectiveness of trial counsel in his New Jersey criminal proceedings. But “a challenge 

to an alien’s criminal conviction, upon which a removal order is based, is beyond the 

scope of removal proceedings.” Vasiliu v. Holder, 651 F.3d 1185, 1187 (10th Cir. 2011); 

accord Drakes v. INS, 330 F.3d 600, 606 (3d Cir. 2003). The pendency of a collateral 

attack on a conviction is not relevant. Paredes v. Att’y Gen., 528 F.3d 196, 198–99 (3d 

Cir. 2008). To the extent that Hanna attacks the conduct of his prior immigration 

counsel, we agree with the Government that he failed to allege such ineffectiveness 

before the agency, and the claim is therefore unexhausted and barred. Hanna’s final 

argument, urging the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, is precisely the sort of claim 

proscribed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). See Chehazeh v. Att’y Gen., 666 F.3d 118, 134 (3d 

Cir. 2012) (citing Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 

485 (U.S. 1999)); see also S-Cheng v. Ashcroft

In sum, as no claim within this petition for review is either colorable or permitted 

by statute, we lack jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition will be dismissed.

, 380 F.3d 320, 324 (8th Cir. 2004).