Thomas Tedros Amanuel, a.k.a. Thomas T. Amanuel, a.k.a. Thomas Amanuel Tedros,… v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THOMAS TEDROS AMANUEL, a.k.a.
Thomas T. Amanuel, a.k.a. Thomas
Amanuel Tedros, a.k.a. Thomas Johnny
Tedros,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-74015
Agency No. A025-303-038
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 21, 2014**
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Thomas Tedros Amanuel, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We dismiss the
FILED
JAN 23 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

petition for review. motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
Because Amanuel is removable as an aggravated felon under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), our jurisdiction is limited to colorable constitutional claims
and questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). Amanuel’s contention that
the BIA used the incorrect legal standard in determining that he had not established
prejudice is not supported by the record and does not raise a colorable
constitutional claim or question of law sufficient to restore our jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th
Cir. 2009) (“To be colorable in this context . . . , the claim must have some
possible validity.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
We also lack jurisdiction to review Amanuel’s contention that his former
attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to assert that his conviction does
not meet the generic offense of burglary because Amanuel failed to raise this
contention before the BIA in his motion to reopen. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d
1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
11-74015 2

-- 2 of 2 --