Rufino Flores-Velasquez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUFINO FLORES-VELASQUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-76017
Agency No. A038-085-975
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 23, 2010**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Rufino Flores-Velasquez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an
immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
FILED
AUG 31 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

05-76017 2
We review de novo questions of law, Montes-Lopez v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 1163,
1165 (9th Cir. 2007), and we deny the petition for review.
Flores-Velasquez does not challenge the agency’s determination that he is
removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) based on his 1995 conviction for
lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age in violation of California
Penal Code § 288(a).
Contrary to Flores-Velasquez’s contention, he 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former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996), because his ground of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); see also Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1207 & 1208 n.7
(9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --