
    Jose Mauricio SALAZAR-CARRANZA, a.k.a. Joe Salazar, Jr., Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72137.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 12, 2013.
    
    Filed March 21, 2013.
    Martin R. Robles-Avila, Esquire, Federal Immigration Counselors, Inc., APC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Gladys Marta Steffens Guzman, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Mauricio Salazar-Carranza, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order because Salazar-Carranza is removable for an aggravated felony crime of violence based on his conviction for second-degree robbery in violation of California Penal Code § 211. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); United States v. McDougherty, 920 F.2d 569, 573-74 (9th Cir.1990) (conviction under California Penal Code § 211 is categorically a crime of violence).

Salazar-Carranza’s challenge to the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen so that he may pursue post-conviction relief does not raise a colorable constitutional claim that would restore our jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). See Planes v. Holder, 652 F.3d 991, 996 (9th Cir.2011) (a conviction is final for immigration purposes where a judgment of guilt has been entered and a punishment imposed, even where an appeal or collateral attack is pending).

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