Opinion ID: 4403155
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jurisdiction over Singh’s Petition6

Text: We are obliged to first satisfy ourselves of our own jurisdiction before analyzing the merits of a case. Adorers of the Blood of Christ v. FERC, 897 F.3d 187, 193 n.5 (3d Cir. 2018). Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), we generally have jurisdiction to review final orders of removal, but our jurisdiction is limited when, as in this instance, the noncitizen is removable due to a controlled substance offense. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C).7 4 The BIA construed Singh’s submission of additional country conditions evidence to be, in effect, a motion to remand. 5 Singh also twice sought a stay of removal, which we denied. 6 The BIA had jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1. 7 Singh argues that § 1252(a)(2)(C) does not apply because the BIA did not base its decision on the IJ’s “particularly serious crime” determination. But whether § 1252(a)(2)(C) applies is determined by the grounds for the noncitizen’s removability, 5 Specifically, “we lack jurisdiction to review factual findings underlying a removal order against an alien who has committed a controlled substance offense.” Green v. Att’y Gen., 694 F.3d 503, 506 (3d Cir. 2012). Singh does not dispute, and never has, that he is removable for violating a law relating to a controlled substance.8 Thus, we can review his petition only to the extent it raises colorable constitutional claims or other questions of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Mendez–Reyes v. Att’y Gen., 428 F.3d 187, 189 (3d Cir. 2005). We review constitutional and legal questions de novo. Roye v. Att’y Gen., 693 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2012). Where, as here, the BIA issues its own decision on the merits, we review the BIA’s decision and consider the IJ’s decision only insofar as the BIA relied on it. Id.