Raul Gallegos-Carrillo 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RAUL GALLEGOS-CARRILLO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-75134
Agency No. A028-700-894
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.
Raul Gallegos-Carrillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
FILED
AUG 31 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

06-75134 2
§ 1252. 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.
Gallegos-Carrillo does not challenge the BIA’s determination that he is
removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) based on his 1996 conviction for
lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age in violation of California
Penal Code § 288(a).
Contrary to Gallegos-Carrillo’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former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996), because his ground of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).
Gallegos-Carrillo’s retroactivity and equal protection challenges to the
BIA’s denial of section 212(c) relief are foreclosed by Abebe, 554 F.3d at 1207 &
1208 n.7.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --