
    Khaled Jiries SALMAN, a.k.a. Khaled Edau Salman a.k.a. Khaled Esav Salman, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-73454.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 8, 2003.
    
    Decided Dec. 19, 2003.
    Khaled Jiries Salman, pro se, Tucson, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, District Director, Phoenix, AZ, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Patricia A. Smith, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Khaled Jiries Salman, a native and citizen of Jordan, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision reversing the Immigration Judge’s decision, which granted Salman deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 over Salman’s contention that he is a national of the United States.

Salman’s contention that he cannot be removed because he is a national of the United States is foreclosed by Perdomo-Padilla v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 964, 965 (9th Cir.2003) (holding a person may become a “national of the United States” only through birth or naturalization).

To the extent Salman contends his order of removal violates due process, we dismiss the petition for review because we lack jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); Flores-Miramontes v. INS, 212 F.3d 1133, 1135-36 (9th Cir. 2000).

We deny Salman’s motion for bond and motion for reconsideration of stay pending review, filed November 10, 2003, as moot. We deny Salman’s motion for the status of a prior motion, filed November 17, 2003, as unnecessary.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED, in part, and DISMISSED, in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     