Act (“IIRIRA”), Pub.L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-626-27 (1996), because the final agency order was entered after October 30, 1996, and deportation proceedings were pending before April 1, 1997. See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). Under the transitional rules, “there shall be no appeal permitted in the case of an alien who is ... deportable by reason of having committed a criminal offense” enumerated in section 241(a)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). See IIRIRA § 309(c)(4)(G). Rojas-Garcia admitted to being convicted of a firearms offense, which is covered by section 241(a)(2)(C) of the INA. We must therefore dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. See Magana-Pizano v. INS, 200 F.3d 603, 607 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Briseno v. INS, 192 F.3d 1320, 1322 (9th
holding that jurisdictionstripping provisions of iirira did not preclude aliens convicted of aggravated felonies from pursuing habeas relief pursuant to 28 usc  2241 holding that review under  2241 is still available ndtwithstanding language in  1252a2c barring review by any court of final orders of removal for aliens deportable by reason of having committed a criminal offense and distinguishing between direct and collateral review holding that because 28 usc  2241 habeas corpus relief is available to review constitutional claims congress preclusion of direct appeals in iirira see tion 309c4g does not offend the due process clause of the constitution holding that review under  2241 still available notwithstanding express language in iirira barring review by any court of final orders of removal for aliens deportable by reason of having committed a criminal offense and distinguishing between direct and collateral review holding that iirira  309c4g repealed this courts jurisdiction over petitions for review filed by aliens who are deportable for having committed enumerated criminal offenses but did not repeal 28 usc  2241