Case Name: Joao Avelino Meneses PEDRO, a.k.a. John Pedro, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-30
Citations: 584 F. App'x 381
Docket Number: No. 12-73559
Parties: Joao Avelino Meneses PEDRO, a.k.a. John Pedro, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 584
Pages: 381–382

Head Matter:
Joao Avelino Meneses PEDRO, a.k.a. John Pedro, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-73559.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 22, 2014.
Filed July 30, 2014.
Robert L. Lewis, Esquire, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.
Dana Michelle Camilleri, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Joao Avelino Meneses Pedro, a native and citizen of Portugal, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.
Meneses Pedro's undisputed removability for an aggravated-felony conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) limits our jurisdiction to colorable constitutional claims and questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)-(D); see also Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 998 n. 5 (9th Cir.2007) ("[W]ithdrawal of judicial review over final orders of deportation also withdraws jurisdiction from motions . to reopen deportation proceedings for those aliens deportable for having committed a crime enumerated in the statute." (citation omitted)).
Meneses Pedro has failed to raise a colorable constitutional claim or question of law that would invoke our jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir.2009) ("To be colorable in this context, the [constitutional claim or question of law] need not be substantial, but the claim must have some possible validity." (citation omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.