Case Name: Anayeliy GALVAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-23
Citations: 396 F. App'x 443
Docket Number: No. 08-74704
Parties: Anayeliy GALVAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 396
Pages: 443–444

Head Matter:
Anayeliy GALVAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-74704.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Sept. 23, 2010.
Anayeliy Galvan, Costa Mesa, CA, pro se.
David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Lance Lomond Jolley, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. 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.
Anayeliy Galvan, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA properly concluded that Galvan is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal because she was convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(C) (an alien is ineligible for cancellation of removal if convicted of an offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)).
Galvan's remaining contentions are not persuasive.
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.