Opinion ID: 772896
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: 5 Before addressing the merits of Farquharson's appeal, we must consider whether we have jurisdiction to hear his petition. Section 106 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1105a(a), as amended by section 309 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) governs this Court's jurisdiction. Although most of IIRIRA's provisions apply only to proceedings commenced on or after April 1, 1997, IIRIRA adopted transitional rules which apply in the case of an alien who is in exclusion or deportation proceedings before April 1, 1997, where the final order is entered after October 31, 1996. See Alanis-Bustamante v. Reno, 201 F.3d 1303, 1306 (11th Cir.2000). IIRIRA's transitional rules apply to Farquharson because his deportation proceedings were commenced before April 1, 1997, and the final deportation order was entered after October 31, 1996. 6 IIRIRA's transitional rules provide that there shall be no appeal permitted in the case of an alien who is inadmissible or deportable by reason of having committed a criminal offense described in specific enumerated sections. IIRIRA 309(c)(4)(G), reprinted in 8 U.S.C. 1101 note. Notwithstanding this restriction, this Court retains jurisdiction to determine whether an alien is deportable under the immigration statute. See Lettman v. Reno, 168 F.3d 463, 465 (11th Cir.1999). Because judicial review is limited by statutory conditions, courts retain jurisdiction to determine whether those conditions exist. See id. As explained in Lettman, this determination involves considering whether the petitioner is (1) an alien (2) deportable (3) by reason of a criminal offense listed in the statute. See id. We thus have jurisdiction over Farquharson's petition for direct review to determine whether the BIA correctly concluded that Farquharson is deportable.