Case Name: Leonel MINA-RIOS, 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 744
Docket Number: No. 10-73397
Parties: Leonel MINA-RIOS, 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: 744–745

Head Matter:
Leonel MINA-RIOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-73397.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
Filed Oct. 6, 2011.
Andrew Jeffrey Fishkin, Esquire, Law Office of Andrew J. Fishkin, P.C., Bakersfield, CA, for Petitioner.
Justin Robert Markel, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Offiee of Immigration Litigation, 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
Leonel Mina-Rios, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's order 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 determined that Mina-Rios is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C) based on his 2006 conviction for violating California Penal Code § 12025(a)(2). See Gil v. Holder, 651 F.3d 1000, 1005, 2011 WL 2464782, at *3 (9th Cir.2011) ("[U]nder the categorical approach, a conviction under California Penal Code § 12025(a) constitutes a firearms offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C).")
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.