Case Name: Gurjet SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-23
Citations: 313 F. App'x 1
Docket Number: No. 06-71507
Parties: Gurjet SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 313
Pages: 1–2

Head Matter:
Gurjet SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-71507.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 13, 2007.
Filed Aug. 23, 2007.
John M. Pope, Esq., Deniz S. Arik, Sten-der & Pope, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, OIL, Richard Zanfardino, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gurjet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order affirming an immigration judge's order denying his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction over Singh's petition for review because he was convicted of an aggravated felony and does not raise a colorable question of law or constitutional claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); Cardoso-Tlaseca v. Gonzales, 460 F.3d 1102, 1103 (9th Cir.2006) (explaining that the jurisdictional bar to reviewing removal orders of petitioners removable for criminal offenses does not bar review of constitutional claims or questions of law).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.