Juan Raul Nuila-Chavez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JUAN RAUL NUILA-CHAVEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-73681
Agency No. A091-514-613
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.
Juan Raul Nuila-Chavez, 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 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 --

06-73681 2
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.
Nuila-Chavez does not challenge the agency’s determination that he is
removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) based on his 1991 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 Nulia-Chavez 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former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996), because his ground of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). Nuila-Chavez’s retroactivity and equal protection
challenges to this determination are unavailing. See Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d
1203, 1207 & 1208 n.7 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc); see also Aragon-Ayon v. INS,
206 F.3d 847, 853 (9th Cir. 2000) (“We are satisfied that Congress intended the
1996 amendments to make the aggravated felony definition apply retroactively to
all defined offenses whenever committed.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --