Audon Grageola-Berumen, a.k.a. Audon Berumen Grageola 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
AUDON GRAGEOLA-BERUMEN, a.k.a.
Audon Berumen Grageola,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70153
Agency No. A041-320-065
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.
Audon Grageola-Berumen, 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 --

07-70153 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.
Grageola-Berumen does not challenge the agency’s determination that he is
removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) based on his 1996 conviction for
continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14 years of age in violation of California
Penal Code § 288.5.
The agency determined that Grageola-Berumen 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former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996), because his ground of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). Grageola-Berumen’s legal challenges to this
determination are foreclosed by Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 n.7 (9th
Cir. 2009) (en banc).
The agency did not err in concluding that Grageola-Berumen’s sexual abuse
of a minor aggravated felony conviction rendered him ineligible for relief pursuant
to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). See Alvarez-Barajas v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1050, 1055 (9th
Cir. 2005).
The government’s March 12, 2008, motion to hold this case in abeyance is
denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --