Case ID: f-appx_402/html/0315-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alfonso Solis NAVARRO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-74973.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Nov. 2, 2010.
    Murray David Hilts, Law Offices of Murray D. Hilts, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Kevin James Conway, Esquire, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, 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

Alfonso Solis Navarro, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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.

Navarro does not challenge the agency’s determination that he is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) based on his conviction for assault with a deadly weapon in violation of Cal.Penal Code § 245(a)(1).

Navarro is ineligible for relief under former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996), because his ground of remov-ability lacks a statutory counterpart in a ground of inadmissibility. See 8 C.F.R. § 1212.3(f)(5); see also Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701, 706 (9th Cir.2010).

Navarro’s equal protection challenge to the agency’s denial of section 212(c) relief is foreclosed by Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1207 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc).

Navarro’s remaining contention is unpersuasive.

Navarro’s pending motion is denied as moot.

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