Sen Yuan Li v. Ashcroft , 51 F. App'x 845 ( 2002 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
DEC 3 2002
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
SEN YUAN LI, also known as
Simon Li,
Petitioner, No. 01-9546
(BIA No. A74 148 307)
v. (Petition for Review)
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR , EBEL , and O’BRIEN , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Petitioner Sen Yuan Li seeks review of a decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals that upheld a final order of removal. We dismiss the
petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Mr. Li, a native and citizen of Taiwan, entered the United States in 1992 as
a non-immigrant visitor. His status was adjusted to lawful permanent resident in
1995 after he married a United States citizen. The Immigration and
Naturalization Service instituted deportation proceedings against Mr. Li on
August 11, 1999, charging that he was removable based on past criminal
convictions in Taiwan that he had not disclosed to the agency. Mr. Li was later
found removable because he had been convicted in Taiwan of possession of a
controlled substance and assault resulting in death. His requests for relief from
removal were denied.
Petitioner raises several arguments on appeal, but we lack jurisdiction to
consider them. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), this court is without jurisdiction
to review a final order of removal when “an alien . . . is removable by reason of
having committed a criminal offense covered in section 1182(a)(2) . . . of this
title.” Section 1182(a)(2) includes “a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to
violate) any law or regulation of . . . a foreign country relating to a controlled
substance.” § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). Because Mr. Li was convicted of possession
of a controlled substance in Taiwan, we lack jurisdiction to review the final order
-2-
of removal. See Khalayleh v. INS , 287 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 2002).
Petitioner’s contention that he was convicted in absentia is not supported by the
record and we therefore reject his argument that his controlled substance
conviction should not be considered. We do not reach petitioner’s arguments that
his assault conviction is not covered by § 1252(a)(2)(C).
The petition for review is DISMISSED.
Entered for the Court
Stephanie K. Seymour
Circuit Judge
-3-