22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T480,Memorandum: Rufino Flores-Velasquez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo questions of law, Montes-Lopez v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 1163, 1165 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition for review. Flores-Velasquez does not challenge the agency’s determination that he is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (a)(2)(A)(iii) based on his 1995 conviction for lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age in violation of California Penal Code § 288(a). Contrary to Flores-Velasquez’s contention, he is ineligible for relief under former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (c) (repealed 1996), because his ground of removability lacks a statutory counterpart in a ground of inadmissibility.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); see also Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203 , 1207 & 1208 n.7 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4b2,

Memorandum:

Rufino Flores-Velasquez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo questions of law, Montes-Lopez v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 1163, 1165 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition for review.

Flores-Velasquez does not challenge the agency’s determination that he is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (a)(2)(A)(iii) based on his 1995 conviction for lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age in violation of California Penal Code § 288(a).

Contrary to Flores-Velasquez’s contention, he is ineligible for relief under former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (c) (repealed 1996), because his ground of removability lacks a statutory counterpart in a ground of inadmissibility.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); see also Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203 , 1207 & 1208 n.7 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.