Case Name: Enrique AYALA-JIMENEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-16
Citations: 376 F. App'x 676
Docket Number: No. 07-73988
Parties: Enrique AYALA-JIMENEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 376
Pages: 676–677

Head Matter:
Enrique AYALA-JIMENEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73988.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 16, 2010.
Gloria G. Lopez, Esquire, Law Office of Gloria Lopez, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
John Clifford Cunningham, I, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Linda S. Wendtland, Esquire, 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: RYMER, McKEOWN and PAEZ, 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
Enrique Ayala-Jimenez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo, Esquivel-Garcia v. Holder, 593 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review.
It is undisputed that Ayala-Jimenez pleaded guilty to possession for sale of a controlled substance under California law. Ayala-Jimenez's testimony is sufficient evidence to support the IJ's finding that the controlled substance involved in Ayala-Jimenez's conviction was cocaine. See id. at 1030. As such the IJ did not err in denying Ayala-Jimenez's application for adjustment of status because he is inadmissible, see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i), and ineligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h).
Ayala-Jimenez's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.