Elias MAALOUF, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent, 320 F. App'x 66

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner Elias Maalouf, a native and citizen of Syria, seeks review of a November 5, 2007 order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In re Elias Maalouf No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Nov. 5, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), we lack jurisdiction to consider Maalouf s petition for review where he was convicted of an aggravated felony and two crimes of moral turpitude, not arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct.

Notwithstanding that provision, however, we retain jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and “questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Maaloufs argument that the BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion to reopen by failing to consider his evidence is not a question of law where it “essentially disputes the correctness of the [agency’s] fact-finding or the wisdom of [its] exercise of discretion.” Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 329 (2d Cir.2006); see Bugayong v.

I.N.S., 442 F.3d 67, 72 (2d Cir.2006) (“[T]he mere assertion that an IJ has ‘abused his discretion’ by ‘incorrectly weighing the evidence, failing to explicitly consider certain evidence, or simply reaching the wrong outcome’ does not itself establish a colorable ‘constitutional claim’ within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).” (alterations omitted)).

Thus, because Maalouf does not advance any constitutional claims or questions of law that we could review pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), this Court lacks jurisdiction to review Maal-ouf s petition for review of the BIA’s order denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); see also Durant v. U.S. I.N.S., 393 F.3d 113, 115 (2d Cir.2004) (stating that the jurisdictional bar under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(

C) also applies to an order denying a motion to reopen removal proceedings). For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.