OPINION

The petitioner has applied to this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying an application for asylum and withholding of deportation. Concluding that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act has made the Board’s order nonreviewable, we shall dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

I

The petitioner, Napoleon Daniel, is a Kurdish Iraqi who came to the United States in 1978 at the age of 14. His father, Yelda Daniel, was a member of the Kurdish Partisan Party, which fought Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath Party. With the defeat of the Kurdish resistance, and several of his relatives having been killed by the Iraqi government, Yelda Daniel was fearful for his family’s safety. The family left Iraq illegally and entered the United States as refugees in 1978. The older Daniels have since become United States citizens, and Napoleon Daniel maintains permanent resident status.

Napoleon Daniel was convicted on controlled substance and firearm charges in 1992, and he served an eighteen-month pris *1103 on term. Deportation proceedings were instituted against Mm subsequent to Ms release from prison.

Mr. Darnel conceded that Ms convictions established deportability, but pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h) he requested asylum and withholding of deportation on the basis of a fear of persecution. Evidence at the deportation hearing included (a) testimony from Yelda Darnel as to Ms involvement in the Kurdish resistance and his reasons for leavmg Iraq; (b) testimony from Napoleon Darnel as to Ms reasons for believing that the Iraqi government would kill him as a spy if he were' to return to his native country; and (e) an Amnesty International Report detailing Iraq’s renewed persecution of the Kurds and other mmority groups after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was repulsed m 1991.

An immigration judge found that Mr. Daniel had failed to carry his burden of proof. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld this decision, and Darnel’s petition for review was filed in this court on February 6, 1996.

II

Section 440(a) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act amended 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(10) to provide that “any final order of deportation agamst an alien who is deportable by reason of having committed [a listed criminal offense including controlled substance and certain firearm offenses] ... shall not be subject to review by any court.” Congress provided no specific effective date for § 440(a), so the amendment took effect on the date of enactment, April 24, 1996. Qasguargis v. INS, 91 F.3d 788 (6th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 1080, 137 L.Ed.2d 215 (1997). Mr. Darnel argues that because it took effect after Ms convictions and after the filing of Ms petition for review, the amendment cannot be applied to him.

Although the ex post facto clause of the Constitution does not extend to deportation proceedings, see Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522, 531, 74 S.Ct. 737, 742-43, 98 L.Ed. 911 (1954); Hamama v. INS, 78 F.3d 233, 237 (6th Cir. 1996), we must determine whether, given the general presumption against retroactivity, the amendment at issue here was intended to apply in this case notwithstanding the absence of any explicit Congressional direction for retroactive application.

In discussing the presumption against ret-roactivity, the Supreme Court has explained that an amendment enlarging or restricting jurisdiction usually applies from the effective date of the amendment regardless of whether jurisdiction lay when the action was filed. Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 274, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1501-02, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994). The application of current jurisdictional law does not have a retroactive effect, according to the Court, because “jurisdictional statutes ‘speak to the power of the court rather than to the rights or obligations of the parties.’ ” Id., quoting Republic Nat’l Bank of Miami v. United States, 506 U.S. 80, 100, 113 S.Ct. 554, 565, 121 L.Ed.2d 474 (1992) (Thomas, J., concurring).

The Seventh Circuit has decided that where an alien who had a “colorable defense to deportability” nevertheless conceded de-portability in reliance on the opportunity to obtam judicial review, amended § 440(a) may not be read as withdrawing that opportumty. Reyes-Hernandez v. INS, 89 F.3d 490, 492-93 (7th Cir. 1996). Unlike the alien in Reyes-Hemandez, however, Mr. Daniel had no col-orable ; defense to deportability. Mr. Darnel was not unfairly entrapped by the amendment, in our view, and § 440(a) therefore divests tMs court of jurisdiction to hear Ms petition.

DISMISSED.