
    Fidel MARTINEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-72264.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 4, 2012.
    Fidel Martinez-Rodriguez, Eloy, AZ, pro se.
    OIL, Genevieve Holm, Anthony W. Nor-wood, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Fidel Martinez-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 921 (9th Cir.2007), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the order of removal entered against Martinez-Rodriguez because his 1996 conviction for possession of cocaine renders him removable by reason of having committed a criminal offense relating to a controlled substance. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), 1252(a)(2)(C); Perez-Mejia v. Holder, 668 F.3d 403, 409-10 (9th Cir.2011) (the immigration judge may rely on an alien’s factual admissions at the pleading stage of removal proceedings in determining whether a conviction qualifies as a removable controlled substance offense).

Martinez-Rodriguez’s contention that the agency erred and violated his right to due process by failing to reopen his proceedings sua sponte is not a colorable legal or constitutional claim. See Vargas-Hernandez, 497 F.3d at 921; Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.2011). Martinez-Rodriguez’s contention that the agency violated his right to due process by refusing to allow him to apply for suspension of deportation fails because he has not demonstrated that the alleged error may have affected the outcome of his proceedings. See Vargas-Hernandez, 497 F.3d at 926.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     