Case Name: Carlos Leonidas SOSA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-13
Citations: 234 F. App'x 777
Docket Number: No. 05-77250
Parties: Carlos Leonidas SOSA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 234
Pages: 777–777

Head Matter:
Carlos Leonidas SOSA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-77250.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 4, 2006.
Withdrawn from Submission Dec. 8, 2006.
Resubmitted July 9, 2007.
Filed July 13, 2007.
John M. Pope, Esq., Stender & Pope, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
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, James E. Grimes, Esq., William C. Minick, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: D.W. NELSON, COWEN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Robert E. Cowen, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner Carlos Leonidas Sosa seeks review of the decision of an Immigration Judge finding him ineligible for former INA § 212(c) relief. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. Because the ground of deporta-bility sustained against Sosa lacks a statutory counterpart in the grounds of inadmissibility, § 212(c) relief was unavailable. In re Blake, 23 I. & N. Dec. 722 (BIA 2005). In Abebe v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 1092, No. 05-76201, 2007 WL 1965165 (9th Cir. July 9, 2007), we rejected the objections to the Blake rule that are raised in Sosa's petition.
PETITION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.