
    Jafran AHMED, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-73176
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 9, 2017 
    
    Filed August 15, 2017
    Usman Ahmad, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Usman B. Ahmad, PC, Long Island City, NY, for Petitioner'
    Jason Wisecup, Kate Deboer Balaban, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DÓJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: SCHROEDER,- TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jafran Ahmed, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order affirming the decision of an asylum officer during expedited removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review Ahmed’s removal order because it was issued pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B). 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A)(iii). Ahmed does not challenge the removal order under any of the “strictly limited” exceptions in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e) and our jurisdiction does not extend to his challenge to the validity of the expedited removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2)(B) (challenge to whether alien was removed pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) must be made in habeas corpus proceedings); Pena v. Lynch, 815 F.3d 452, 456 (9th Cir. 2016) (court lacks jurisdiction to review any constitutional or statutory claims related to the underlying expedited removal order).

Ahmed’s motion to stay his removal is denied as moot. The currently effective temporary stay of removal will expire upon the issuance of the mandate.

Ahmed’s motion to stay the mandate is denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     