Opinion ID: 53231
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: As an initial matter, we lack jurisdiction to consider Rodrigues’s ineffective assistance claims on his underlying criminal conviction. This Court is not the 5 proper forum for such claims, and the record before us does not enable review. See Mohammed v Ashcroft, 261 F.3d 1244, 1251 (11th Cir. 2001) (noting that we cannot provide proper remedy where alien seeking to attack collaterally underlying criminal conviction). In any event, Rodrigues did not raise this claim before the BIA and thus has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on this issue. See Fernandez-Bernal v. Att’y Gen., 257 F.3d 1304, 1317 n.13 (11th Cir. 2001) (stating that exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional). Our jurisdiction to review Rodrigues’s order of removal is otherwise limited by the REAL ID Act of 2005, 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Pursuant to section 1252(a)(2)(C), we lack jurisdiction to review “any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed a [covered] criminal offense.” One such offense is “a violation of . . . any law . . . relating to a controlled substance.” INA § 237(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(ii). The IJ ordered Rodrigues removed on this basis, and the BIA affirmed that order. Rodrigues does not challenge the classification of his conviction as a violation of a controlled substance law. Thus, under section 1252(a)(2)(C), we lack jurisdiction to review the entire order, except to the extent that the exception in 1252(a)(2)(D) 6 applies.3 Under that provision, we retain jurisdiction to decide only constitutional claims or questions of law. We now turn to Rodrigues’s three remaining arguments to determine whether they present legal or constitutional issues permitting our review.