
    Ricardo A. URQUILLA-SAGASTIZADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 06-74892, 07-71015.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 13, 2010.
    Louis A. Gordon, Esquire, Law Offices of Louis A. Gordon, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Mark Christopher Walters, Esquire, Assistant Director, Annette Marie Wietecha, Trial, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated petitions for review, Ricardo A. Urquilla-Sagastizado, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying him relief under former Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(c), and the BIA’s subsequent order denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims, and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. See Escobar v. Holder, 567 F.3d 466, 469 (9th Cir.2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review in No. 06-74892, and deny the petition for review in No. 07-71015.

We agree with the BIA’s conclusion that Urquilla-Sagastizado’s concession of the charge of removability, communicated to the IJ through counsel, was effective. See Magallanes-Damian v. INS, 783 F.2d 931, 934 (9th Cir.1986) (aliens “are generally bound by the conduct of their attorneys, including admissions made by them, absent egregious circumstances”).

We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary decision to deny Urquilla-Sa-gastizado section 212(c) relief, and he does not raise a colorable constitutional claim to overcome this jurisdictional bar. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) (2) (B) (ii); Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 923 (9th Cir.2007) (“Discretionary decisions, including whether or not to grant § 212(c) relief, are not reviewable.”).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Urquilla-Sagastizado’s motion to reopen, because the BIA considered the evidence Urquilla-Sagastizado submitted and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law.”).

Urquilla-Sagastizado’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

No. 06-74892: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

No. 07-71015: PETITION FOR DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     