NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 Peti tion for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(Agency No. A094

- 166

- 143 ) Immigration Judge: Honorable Susan G. Roy

____________________________________ Submitted u nder Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on August 8 , 2012
Before: SMITH, HARDIM AN 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
procee dings. Lacking jurisdiction, we will dismiss the petition for review. Hanna is a native and citizen of Lebanon. In 2008, he was convicted of a New2 Jersey drug offense ( a violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:35

- 7 ) . Hanna was thereafter charged with being r emovable 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
collatera l 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 r eview final orders of removal;
ho wever, that jurisdiction is not without limits. B ecause 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

mus t 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
suffer s from readily identifiable jurisdictional defects. First, Hanna assails the
ineffectiveness of tria l counsel in his New Jerse y 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)

. T he 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 proscrib ed 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)

.