Ramon Carlos Juarez-Rios v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAMON CARLOS JUAREZ-RIOS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72441
Agency No. A091-516-702
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 13, 2012**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Ramon Carlos Juarez-Rios, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from a
decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying Juarez-Rios’s motion to reopen.
FILED
NOV 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-72441 2
We review de novo questions of law. Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1189
(9th Cir. 2011). We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision to deny Juarez-Rios’s
motion to reopen, because Juarez-Rios’s pleadings before the IJ establish that he is
removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) by reason of
his conviction for possession of methamphetamine for sale. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(C); see also Pagayon, 675 F.3d at 1189 (holding that a petitioner’s
pleading-stage admissions may be sufficient to establish removability). Juarez-
Rios 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 [or question] must have some possible validity.” (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --