Chi Hiu Ngo Pham v. Gonzales

MEMORANDUM **

Pham seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (Board) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order denying him protection under the Conven *655 tion Against Torture 1 (CAT) and ordering him removed. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 , and we deny the petition.

Pham contends that the CAT prohibits his removal. The government argues, however, that we lack jurisdiction to review Pham’s CAT claim because of his prior convictions. We determine our own jurisdiction de novo. Ruiz-Morales v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1219, 1221 (9th Cir.2004).

While we generally have authority to review final orders of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(1), in 1996, Congress eliminated jurisdiction to review a final order of removal against an alien who is removable “by reason of having committed” certain enumerated criminal offenses. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(C).

The government asserts that we lack jurisdiction under section 1252(a)(2)(C). We have previously addressed the effect of the jurisdiction-stripping provisions under section 1252(a)(2)(C) on a CAT claim, and dismissed a petition for review for a decision denying relief against the CAT, where the petitioner was…