Opinion ID: 797512
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Torres's Other Claims

Text: 17 Since they were presented to the BIA, Torres's final two claims survive the procedural bar of exhaustion. Nevertheless, they must still withstand other limits to our subject matter jurisdiction. Congress has eliminated judicial review of (1) BIA discretionary decisions, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), as well as (2) any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed certain offenses, among them controlled substance offenses, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). 18 These broad jurisdiction-stripping provisions are subject to two exceptions. First, as an Article III court, we have inherent jurisdiction to determine whether the jurisdictional bar applies. We may therefore decide whether the petitioner is (i) an alien (ii) deportable (iii) by reason of a criminal offense listed in the statute. Latu v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 1012, 1017 (10th Cir.2004) (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, we have jurisdiction to review Torres's arguments challenging the BIA's order of removal on the basis that his plea and conviction do not constitute an offense warranting removal. See Ballesteros v. Ashcroft, 452 F.3d 1153, 1156-1157 (10th Cir.2006). 19 The second exception is statutory, coming from the REAL ID Act. Congress added a new section making clear that [n]othing in [1252(a)(2)(B) or (C)], or in any other provision of this chapter (other than this section) which limits or eliminates judicial review, shall be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Consequently, we are not barred by § 1252(a)(2)(B) or (C) from reviewing Torres's claims that raise either constitutional or legal questions. See Ballesteros, 452 F.3d at 1157. 20 We find Torres's final two claims sufficiently raise legal or constitutional questions to confer jurisdiction to consider their merits. Torres's due process and equal protection challenges to the stop-time rule patently present a constitutional question. His final argument based on consular notification rights also raises a question of law under § 1252(a)(2)(D) because it involves legal issues in interpreting a treaty. 5