Case Name: Salvador Santana GARNICA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-02
Citations: 390 F. App'x 704
Docket Number: No. 08-70688
Parties: Salvador Santana GARNICA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 390
Pages: 704–705

Head Matter:
Salvador Santana GARNICA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-70688.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 19, 2010.
Filed Aug. 2, 2010.
Salvador Santana Garnica, Hayward, CA, pro se.
OIL, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco,- CA, for Respondent.
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, 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
Salvador Santana Garnica, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.
Santana Garnica's contention that his conviction 'does not render him ineligible for cancellation of removal because it occurred more than ten years prior to his application is foreclosed by Flores Juarez v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 1020, 1022 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam) ("[Section] 1229b(b)(1)(C) . does not place any temporal limitation on when the crime was committed").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.