NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 27 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARWAN S. KAWAR, No. 23-2096 Agency No. Petitioner, A027-583-784 v.

MEMORANDUM*

JAMES R. MCHENRY III, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 22, 2025**

Before: CLIFTON, CALLAHAN, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Marwan S. Kawar, a native and citizen of Jordan, petitions pro se for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision granting the government’s motion to reopen removal

proceedings and denying his motion to continue removal proceedings. We have

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and

constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.

2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Kawar’s contention regarding removability is not properly before the court

because he failed to raise it before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (exhaustion

of administrative remedies required); see also Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S.

411, 417-19 (2023) (section 1252(d)(1) is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing

rule).

We lack jurisdiction to review Kawar’s challenge to the agency’s grant of

the motion to reopen because Kawar is removable under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), and did not raise a colorable constitutional claim or question

of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (“[N]o court shall have jurisdiction to review

any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having

committed a [covered] criminal offense.”); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (court retains

jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and questions of law); see also Coria v.

Garland, 114 F.4th 994, 1001 (9th Cir. 2024); Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770

F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner

must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”).

Because Kawar does not challenge the agency’s determination that he did

not establish good cause for a continuance, we do not address it. See Lopez-

2 23-2096 Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).

All other pending motions are denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

3 23-2096