Opinion ID: 215740
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Our jurisdiction to review the final order of removal in this case is limited because Pasha was found, and he does not contest that he is, removable for having committed an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). Therefore, unless Pasha has raised a colorable constitutional or legal claim pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), we lack jurisdiction over his petition for review. Cospito v. Att’y Gen., 539 F.3d 166, 170 (3d Cir. 2008). 2 In its motion to dismiss, the Government contends, inter alia, that, because Pasha’s due process claim—rooted in the alleged ineffective assistance of Levai—is 2 Of course, “a party may not dress up a claim with legal clothing to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction.” Pareja v. Att’y Gen., 615 F.3d 180, 186 (3d Cir. 2010). 4 “meritless,” we lack jurisdiction over the petition for review. But contrary to the Government’s contention, ‘colorable’ is not a synonym of ‘meritorious.’ See United States v. Voigt, 89 F.3d 1050, 1067 (3d Cir. 1996) (noting that a claim is “colorable” if it consists of more than “mere bald-faced allegations”); Batoff v. State Farm Ins. Co., 977 F.2d 848, 852 (3d Cir. 1992) (noting that a claim is “colorable” if it is “not wholly insubstantial or frivolous.”). That said, we conclude that Pasha raises a colorable ineffective assistance of counsel claim, thus enabling our exercise of jurisdiction to review that claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). Pasha’s claim that the BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion to remand, on the other hand, is the type of claim § 1252(a)(2)(C) prevents us from reaching in a case like this. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss the petition for review in part. We proceed to the merits of Pasha’s petition that we can entertain. 3