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:T443,MEMORANDUM Teodoro Guerrero-Venegas, 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 decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo questions of law. Iturribarria v. I.N.S., 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review. Guerrero-Venegas’ contention that the agency violated its own regulations governing the pleading stage of proceedings fails for lack of prejudice, because he does not dispute the. factual basis for removability. See Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007) (petitioner must demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the agency’s violation of its own regulation); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10 . We reject Guerrero-Venegas’ contention that the BIA issued an order of removal in the first instance. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T475,

MEMORANDUM

Teodoro Guerrero-Venegas, 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 decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo questions of law. Iturribarria v. I.N.S., 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.

Guerrero-Venegas’ contention that the agency violated its own regulations governing the pleading stage of proceedings fails for lack of prejudice, because he does not dispute the. factual basis for removability. See Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007) (petitioner must demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the agency’s violation of its own regulation); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10 .

We reject Guerrero-Venegas’ contention that the BIA issued an order of removal in the first instance.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.