Case ID: f-appx_393/html/0526-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rufino FLORES-VELASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-76017.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 23, 2010.
    
    Filed Aug. 31, 2010.
    Rufino Flores-Velasquez, Lancaster, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Lyle D. Jentzer, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   Memorandum:

Rufino Flores-Velasquez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Montes-Lopez v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 1163, 1165 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition for review.

Flores-Velasquez does not challenge the agency’s determination that he is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) based on his 1995 conviction for lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age in violation of California Penal Code § 288(a).

Contrary to Flores-Velasquez’s contention, he is ineligible for relief under former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996), because his ground of removability lacks a statutory counterpart in a ground of inadmissibility.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); see also Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1207 & 1208 n.7 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

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