Case Name: Saul Alfredo LUJAN-SUAREZ, a.k.a. Manuel Suarez-Suares, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-25
Citations: 543 F. App'x 718
Docket Number: No. 11-72615
Parties: Saul Alfredo LUJAN-SUAREZ, a.k.a. Manuel Suarez-Suares, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 543
Pages: 718–719

Head Matter:
Saul Alfredo LUJAN-SUAREZ, a.k.a. Manuel Suarez-Suares, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-72615.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 15, 2013.
Filed Oct. 25, 2013.
Saul Alfredo Lujan-Suarez, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.
Matthew Albert Connelly, Trial, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, 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
Saul Alfredo Lujan-Suarez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's order of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
Lujan-Suarez does not challenge the BIA's determination that he is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C) due to his conviction for misconduct involving weap ons under Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-3102. His removability on this basis limits our jurisdiction to constitutional claims and questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)-(D).
Lujan-Suarez's assertion that he has resided in the United States since childhood is not a sufficiently colorable claim to invoke our jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) ("To be colorable in this context, the [question of law] need not be substantial, but the claim must have some possible validity." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.