Opinion ID: 786188
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: 13 As an initial matter, we consider the government's contention that under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) we lack jurisdiction to review the petitioners' order of removal. That provision states that no court shall have jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed a criminal offense covered in section... 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). As recently explained, however, this jurisdiction-stripping provision comes into play only when two facts exist: (1) the petitioner is an alien (2) who is deportable by reason of having been convicted of one of the enumerated offenses. Drakes v. Zimski, 240 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir.2001). We necessarily have jurisdiction to determine whether these jurisdictional facts are present. Id.; see Valansi v. Ashcroft, 278 F.3d 203, 207 (3d Cir.2002). We are thus not precluded from reviewing the petitioners' argument that they have not been convicted of an enumerated offense. If the petitioners are right, judicial review of the removal orders is not precluded, and they will be vacated for failing to allege a removable offense. If the petitioners are wrong, we lack jurisdiction to inquire any further into the merits, and the removal order will stand. 14