Case Name: Thao Minh TRUONG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-22
Citations: 232 F. App'x 721
Docket Number: No. 05-73688
Parties: Thao Minh TRUONG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: THOMPSON, KLEINFELD, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 232
Pages: 721–722

Head Matter:
Thao Minh TRUONG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-73688.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 18, 2007 .
Filed May 22, 2007.
Alison Dixon, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Joanne E. Johnson, Esq., San Francisco, CA, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: THOMPSON, KLEINFELD, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Substantial evidence supports the Immigration Judge's finding that Truong is entitled neither to withholding of removal nor to CAT relief. We lack jurisdiction to review the Immigration Judge's finding Truong is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii)- Under our decision in Molina-Amezcua v. INS and Truong's stipulation, the government was not barred by the earlier grant of relief from reconsidering.
We have already held that even if a petitioner is eligible for a § 212(c) waiver of an aggravated felony, the underlying conviction "would nonetheless remain an aggravated felony for purposes of precluding his application for cancellation of removal" under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). Moreover, the statute providing for cancellation of removal states that an alien "who has been granted relief under section [212(c) ], as such [section was] in effect before September 30, 1996," is not eligible for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, we hold that Truong cannot seek simultaneous relief under both 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) and 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. Bellout v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 975, 977-79 (9th Cir.2004).
. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); Cedano-Viera v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir.2003); Molina-Amezcua v. INS, 6 F.3d 646, 647 (9th Cir.1993).
. Molina-Amezcua v. INS, 6 F.3d 646, 647 (9th Cir.1993).
. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c).
. Becker v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1000, 1004 (9th Cir.2007). See also Rodriguez-Munoz v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d 245, 247-48 (3d Cir.2005).
. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(c)(6).