MEMORANDUM

Steven Torlone, a native and citizen of Canada, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo constitutional questions and questions of law, Becker v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1000 , 1001 n. 2 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition for review.

Torlone’s contention that the expanded aggravated felony definition contained in section 321 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”) cannot be applied retroactively is foreclosed. See Alvarez-Barajas v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir.2005).

Torlone’s aggravated felony conviction renders him ineligible for a § 212(h) waiver. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (h)(2). Torlone’s contention that he remains eligible for a waiver of inadmissability under § 212(h) as it existed prior to the enactment of IIRI-RA is foreclosed. See Alvarez-Barajas, 418 F.3d at 1054-55 (“Congress not only made aliens convicted of aggravated felonies ineligible for [§ 212(h) ] waivers, but expressly made this change retroactive.”).

Torlone’s contention that he is eligible for a waiver of inadmissability under former § 212(c) is foreclosed. See Armendariz-Montoya v. Sonchik, 291 F.3d 1116, 1121-22 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that aliens who “pleaded not guilty and elected a jury trial ... [are] barred from seeking § 212(c) relief’).

Torlone’s due process claims are unpersuasive. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).

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.