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:T436,MEMORANDUM Lorenzo Magana, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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, Cazarez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 905, 909 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review. Magana’s conviction for receipt of stolen property in violation of Cal.Penal Code § 496(a) is an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(43)(G). See Verdugo-Gonzalez v. Holder, 581 F.3d 1059, 1060-61 (9th Cir.2009). We disagree with Magana’s contention that his conviction records do not constitute admissible evidence. See SinotesCruz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1190, 1196-97 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that “[t]he guiding principle is that proper authentication requires some sort of proof that the document is what it purports to be”). 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:T468,

MEMORANDUM

Lorenzo Magana, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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, Cazarez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 905, 909 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

Magana’s conviction for receipt of stolen property in violation of Cal.Penal Code § 496(a) is an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(43)(G). See Verdugo-Gonzalez v. Holder, 581 F.3d 1059, 1060-61 (9th Cir.2009).

We disagree with Magana’s contention that his conviction records do not constitute admissible evidence. See SinotesCruz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1190, 1196-97 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that “[t]he guiding principle is that proper authentication requires some sort of proof that the document is what it purports to be”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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