
    Mahbod Ghazan FARI, also known as Max Fari, Petitioner v. Dana BOENTE, Acting U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
    No. 15-60806 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed February 1, 2017
    Neda A. Zaman, Esq., Law Offices of Neda A. Zaman, Beverly Hills, CA, for Petitioner
    John Frederick Stanton, Rachel Louise Browning, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Respondent
    Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Mahbod Ghazan Fari, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his untimely motion to reopen removal proceedings in which he was found ineligible for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Fari asserts that the BIA erred in denying his request to reopen his removal proceedings for withholding of removal under the CAT based on changed country conditions. The Government contends that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the petition.

The order for Fari’s removal results from his conviction of an aggravated felony. Fari does not dispute that he was convicted of an aggravated felony. Due to Fari’s aggravated felony conviction, our review is limited by statute to constitutional or legal claims. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) & (D); Siwe v. Holder, 742 F.3d 603, 607 (5th Cir. 2014). In this context, we do not have jurisdiction to review factual determinations made by the BIA. See Escudero-Arciniega v. Holder, 702 F.3d 781, 785 (5th Cir. 2012), In the instant matter, Fari is challenging only the BIA’s factual determinations. Because we “would not have had the authority to review a direct petition,” Fari “cannot manufacture jurisdiction simply by petitioning this court to review the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen.” Assaad v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 471, 475 (5th Cir. 2004).

Fari’s petition for review is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     