Case Name: Jorge RODRIGUEZ-SANCHEZ, a.k.a. Jorge Rodriguez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-25
Citations: 412 F. App'x 947
Docket Number: No. 08-74344
Parties: Jorge RODRIGUEZ-SANCHEZ, a.k.a. Jorge Rodriguez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 412
Pages: 947–948

Head Matter:
Jorge RODRIGUEZ-SANCHEZ, a.k.a. Jorge Rodriguez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-74344.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
Filed Jan. 25, 2011.
Berc Agopoglu, Esquire, Law Offices of Berc & Associates, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
AZP-District Director, Office of the District Director, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Aliza Bessie Alyeshmerni, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, 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
Jorge Rodriguez-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cazarez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 905, 909 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.
Rodriguez-Sanchez's contention that a conviction under Cal.Penal Code § 496d(a) is not categorically an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) is foreclosed by Alvarez-Reynaga v. Holder, 596 F.3d 534, 536-37 (9th Cir.2010).
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.