Case Name: Natividad FLORES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-31
Citations: 393 F. App'x 545
Docket Number: No. 06-73114
Parties: Natividad FLORES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 393
Pages: 545–546

Head Matter:
Natividad FLORES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73114.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 23, 2010.
Filed Aug. 31, 2010.
Angela Novas McGill, Esquire, The Law Office of Angela Novas McGill, APC, Long Beach, CA, for Petitioner.
John R. Cunningham, Esquire, 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: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, 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
Natividad Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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.
Flores does not challenge the agency's determination that he is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) based on his 1994 conviction for "continuous sexual abuse of a child" in violation of California Penal Code § 288.5.
The agency determined that Flores is ineligible for relief under former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996), because his ground of removability lacks a statutory counterpart in a ground of inadmissibility. See 8 C.F.R. § 1212.3(f)(5). Flores' legal and constitutional challenges to this determination are unavailing. See Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1207 & 1208 n. 7 (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.