Opinion ID: 2981742
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: In this case, the IJ found that Yeremin was removable under the provision of the INA permitting removal of any alien who is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude that was committed within five years of his or her admission to the United States, and for which a sentence of at least one year may be imposed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i). The INA’s jurisdiction-stripping provision, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), does not apply in this case, because the provision under which Yeremin was charged as removable, § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i), was not listed by Congress in § 1252(a)(2)(C) as a provision that can form the basis of an unreviewable final order of removal. See Precaj v. Holder, 376 F. App’x 553, 556 (6th Cir. 2010); Lee v. Gonzales, 410 F.3d 778, 781–82 (5th Cir. 2005). We also have “jurisdiction to review questions of law and constitutional claims arising from” removal orders. Ruiz-Lopez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 513, 516 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)); see Serrato–Soto v. Holder, 570 F.3d 686, 688 (6th Cir. 2009). The determination of whether a conviction under a particular statute qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude is a question of law and thus is subject to judicial review. See Ruiz–Lopez, 682 F.3d at 516. Nos. 10-4525/11-3975 Yeremin v. Holder Page 5 We also have jurisdiction to review denials by the BIA of motions to reconsider. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405–06 (1995) (explaining that BIA decisions on motions to reconsider are reviewable); see, e.g., Sswajje v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 528, 532–33 (6th Cir. 2003) (reviewing for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider).