Gabriel-Velasquez
Gabriel-Velasquez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Petitioner argues that, because he entered the United States without inspection and subsequently had his status changed to that of permanent resident, he was never admitted for purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (a)(2)(A)(iii) (2000). In rejecting this argument, the Board relied on its interpretation of the phrase “after admission” set out in In re Rosas-Ramirez, No. A92 125 313, 1999 WL 187054 (BIA). We defer to the Board’s interpretation as a “permissible construction of the statute,” see INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 424 , 119 S.Ct. 1439 , 143 L.Ed.2d 590 (1999) (quoting Chevron U.S.A Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843 , 104 S.Ct. 2778 , 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984)), and conclude that petitioner was convicted of an aggravated felony “after admission” to the United States, 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (a)(2)(A)(iii) (2000). Consequently, we lack jurisdiction to consider this claim further. Flores-Miramontes v. INS, 212 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir.2000) (a “narrow exception” to “the jurisdictional bar relating to criminal removal orders” confers only “jurisdiction to determine whether jurisdiction exists”) (internal quotations and citations omitted).