Case Name: Mauricio Gabriel BUENO DE MIRANDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-24
Citations: 366 F. App'x 854
Docket Number: No. 07-74373
Parties: Mauricio Gabriel BUENO DE MIRANDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 366
Pages: 854–855

Head Matter:
Mauricio Gabriel BUENO DE MIRANDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74373.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed Feb. 24, 2010.
Steven Arthur Seick, Steven A. Seick, Attorney at Law, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Michael Christopher Heyse, OIL, Rosanne Perry, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Mauricio Gabriel Bueno de Miranda, a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's order denying his application for adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Mielewczyk v. Holder, 575 F.3d 992, 994 (9th Cir.2009). We deny the petition for review.
Bueno de Miranda's conviction for violating Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11352(a) renders him removable as charged under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)® and ineligible for adjustment of status as an inadmissible alien under 8' U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). See Mielewczyk, 575 F.3d at 995-98.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.