Case ID: f-appx_427/html/0575-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Eugenio ORTEGA-CAZARRUBIA, a.k.a. Eugenio C. Ortega, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-70627.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2011.
    
    Filed April 14, 2011.
    Smirna Ayala, Law Offices of Ronzio & Associates, Frank E. Ronzio, Ronzio & Associates, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Anna Nelson, DOJ — 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: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Eugenio Ortega-Cazarrubia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims, Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

Ortega-Cazarrubia does not challenge the agency’s determination that he is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) based on his 1989 conviction for sexual battery under California Penal Code § 243.4.

The BIA correctly determined that Ortega-Cazarrubia is ineligible for relief under former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996), because his ground of removability lacks a statutory counterpart in a ground of inadmissibility. See 8 C.F.R. § 1212.3(f)(5). Ortega-Cazarrubia’s legal and constitutional challenges to this determination are foreclosed by Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1207, 1208 n. 7 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.