Manuel T. Del Villar 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MANUEL T. DEL VILLAR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-74729
Agency No. A092-344-537
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Manuel T. Del Villar, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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
SEP 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

06-74729 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.
Del Villar does not challenge the agency’s determination that he is
removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) based on his 1992 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 Del Villar 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section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996), because his ground of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). Del Villar’s legal and constitutional challenges to this
determination are foreclosed by Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1207, 1208 n.7
(9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).
Del Villar is ineligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(h), because he was convicted of an aggravated felony after his admission as
a lawful permanent resident. See Alvarez-Barajas v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1050,
1055 (9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --