Case Name: Daniel Rosal ULANDAY, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-14
Citations: 231 F. App'x 725
Docket Number: No. 04-73479
Parties: Daniel Rosal ULANDAY, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, GOULD and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 725–725

Head Matter:
Daniel Rosal ULANDAY, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-73479.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 7, 2007.
Filed May 14, 2007.
Daniel Rosal Ulanday, Eloy, AZ, pro se.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Janice K. Red-fern, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, GOULD and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order affirming an Immigration Judge's decision finding that petitioner is removable for an aggravated felony conviction.
The issue on review—whether petitioner's conviction for taking a vehicle without consent in violation of California Vehicle Code § 10851(a), qualifies as a "theft offense," and thus is an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(G)—is foreclosed by Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, — U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 815, 166 L.Ed.2d 683 (2007). Because petitioner was found removable for an aggravated felony conviction, we lack jurisdiction over this petition for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a) (2) (A)(iii); 1252(a)(2)(C).
Accordingly, respondent's unopposed motion for summary disposition is granted because this petition for review is controlled by precedent. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.