
    Desiderio CORONA-MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-70724.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 17, 2010.
    
    Filed July 1, 2010.
    
      Desiderio Corona-Martinez, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
    Jerry Wolf Stuchiner, Paladin Law, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.
    Alison Drucker, Esquire, Richard Zan-fardino, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and STOTLER, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Alicemarie H. Stotler, Senior United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) did not err in affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge denying Corona-Martinez’s application for cancellation of removal. Aliens who commit “[cjertain firearm offenses” cannot obtain cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(2)(C), 1229b(b)(l)(C). Section 1227 lists the “carrying” of a firearm as one such offense rendering an alien ineligible for relief. 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C). Corona-Martinez’s conviction of “carrying a loaded firearm” in violation of California Penal Code § 12031(a)(1) therefore precludes him from obtaining cancellation of removal. See Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 649, 652 (9th Cir.2004).

The BIA and Immigration Judge did not deprive Corona-Martinez of his due process and equal protection rights. Because Corona-Martinez is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal, he cannot demonstrate that any of the alleged due process violations prejudiced him. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 537-38 (9th Cir.2004). Corona-Martinez’s equal protection argument fails because there is a rational basis for denying relief to aliens who commit firearms offenses. See Avila-Sanchez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 1037, 1041 (9th Cir.2007).

The petition for review is DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     