Case Name: Freddy Santiago CONTRERAS-AGUILAR, 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: 394 F. App'x 362
Docket Number: No. 06-75551
Parties: Freddy Santiago CONTRERAS-AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 394
Pages: 362–363

Head Matter:
Freddy Santiago CONTRERAS-AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75551.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 23, 2010.
Filed Aug. 31, 2010.
John Ayala, Esquire, Alma Cobos-Aya-la, Cobos & Ayala, Burbank, CA, for Petitioner.
Joshua E. Braunstein, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Kathryn Deangelis, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief 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
Freddy Santiago Contreras-Aguilar, 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.
Contreras-Aguilar does not challenge the agency's determination that he is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) based on his 1991 conviction for lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age in violation of California Penal Code § 288(a).
The agency determined that Contreras-Aguilar is ineligible for relief under former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996), because his ground of removability lacks a statutory counterpart in a ground of inadmissibility.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). Contreras-Aguilar's legal and constitutional challenges to this determination are foreclosed by Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1207 & 1208 n. 7 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc).
The government's March 18, 2008, motion to hold this case in abeyance is denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.