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:T51a,MEMORANDUM Arredondo Gomez petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. The IJ and the BIA did not err in relying on Arredondo Gomez’s admissions, made during the pleading stage of his removal hearing. See Perez-Mejia v. Holder, 663 F.3d 403, 410 (9th Cir. 2011). Arredon-do Gomez admitted each of the allegations in the notice to appear, which alleged that he had been convicted of two controlled substance offenses involving methamphetamine. Because these admissions established Arredondo Gomez’s removability pursuant to INA § 237(a)(2)(B)®, 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (a)(2)(B)®, by clear and convincing evidence, we deny the petition for review, see 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10 (c)-(d). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. . Arredondo Gomez challenges on appeal the IJ's and the BIA’s reliance on the complaint in finding him removable. Even assuming Ar-redondo Gomez exhausted this issue before the BIA, the documents were properly considered by the IJ and the BIA as an alternative basis to confirm his removability. See Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977, 986 (9th Cir. 2014).24:T547,

MEMORANDUM

Arredondo Gomez petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal.

The IJ and the BIA did not err in relying on Arredondo Gomez’s admissions, made during the pleading stage of his removal hearing. See Perez-Mejia v. Holder, 663 F.3d 403, 410 (9th Cir. 2011). Arredon-do Gomez admitted each of the allegations in the notice to appear, which alleged that he had been convicted of two controlled substance offenses involving methamphetamine. Because these admissions established Arredondo Gomez’s removability pursuant to INA § 237(a)(2)(B)®, 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (a)(2)(B)®, by clear and convincing evidence, we deny the petition for review, see 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10 (c)-(d).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. . Arredondo Gomez challenges on appeal the IJ's and the BIA’s reliance on the complaint in finding him removable. Even assuming Ar-redondo Gomez exhausted this issue before the BIA, the documents were properly considered by the IJ and the BIA as an alternative basis to confirm his removability. See Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977, 986 (9th Cir. 2014).