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:T4bd,MEMORANDUM Oscar Ernesto Amaya, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdic tion under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims, Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review. Amaya does not challenge the agency’s determination that he is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (a)(2)(A)(iii) based on his 1993 conviction for lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age in violation of California Penal Code § 288(a). The agency determined that Amaya is ineligible for relief under former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (c) (repealed 1996), because his ground of removability lacks a statutory counterpart in a ground of inadmissibility.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). Amaya’s legal and constitutional challenges to this determination are foreclosed by 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:T4ef,

MEMORANDUM

Oscar Ernesto Amaya, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdic tion under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims, Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

Amaya does not challenge the agency’s determination that he is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (a)(2)(A)(iii) based on his 1993 conviction for lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age in violation of California Penal Code § 288(a).

The agency determined that Amaya is ineligible for relief under former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (c) (repealed 1996), because his ground of removability lacks a statutory counterpart in a ground of inadmissibility.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). Amaya’s legal and constitutional challenges to this determination are foreclosed by 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.