
    Amran Ali Al HARBI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-3808.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 13, 2011.
    
      Elaine Cheung, Philadelphia, PA. for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division; Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director; Jeffrey J. Bernstein, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Amran Ali A Harbi (“A Har-bi”), a native and citizen of Yemen, seeks review of an August 23, 2010, order of the BIA affirming the August 4, 2009, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Philip J. Mon-tante, Jr., denying voluntary departure and ordering A Harbi’s removal to Yemen. In re Amran Ali Al Harbi, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Aug. 23, 2010), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. Buffalo Aug. 4, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

The petition for review argues that A Harbi did not commit a crime of moral turpitude, that he did not commit a crime of violence, and that his defense counsel failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of entering a guilty plea. A Harbi did not challenge his removability before the BIA and conceded removability before the IJ. Because A Harbi failed to exhaust these arguments, we lack jurisdiction to review them. See Foster v. INS, 376 F.3d 75, 78 (2d Cir.2004) (per curiam) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)). In any event, A Harbi was not found removable based on commission of an aggravated felony, but based on commission of a crime of moral turpitude. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) (defining “aggravated felony” to include a crime of violence).

This Court lacks jurisdiction to review a final order of removal against an alien removable by reason of having committed a crime of moral turpitude, except for constitutional claims and questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D); § 1182(a)(2) (relating to crimes of moral turpitude). A Harbi raises no such cognizable claims or questions. See Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 40 (2d Cir.2008) (“[W]e lack jurisdiction to review any legal argument that is so insubstantial and frivolous as to be inadequate to invoke federal-question jurisdiction.”).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).  