Case Name: Luis CASTILLEJO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-06
Citations: 452 F. App'x 767
Docket Number: No. 10-71082
Parties: Luis CASTILLEJO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 452
Pages: 767–767

Head Matter:
Luis CASTILLEJO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-71082.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 27, 2010.
Filed Oct. 6, 2011.
Hugo Florentino Larios, Hugo F. Larios Law, P.L.L.C., Tempe, AZ, for Petitioner.
OIL, Genevieve Holm, Terri Jane Sca-dron, Assistant Director, DOJ-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: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, 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
Luis Castillejo, 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, Castillo-Cruz v. Holder, 581 F.3d 1154, 1158-59 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency properly denied Castillejo's application for cancellation of removal on the ground that his conviction under Arizona Revised Statutes § 28-1383(A)(l) is a crime involving moral turpitude rendering him inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2) and therefore ineligible for cancellation relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l). See Marmolejo-Campos v. Holder, 558 F.3d 903, 917 (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.