
    Gustavo Adolfo HIDALGO, aka Felipe Morres, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-73122.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted June 5, 2014.
    Filed June 11, 2014.
    Andres Z. Bustamante, Law Offices of Andres Z. Bustamante, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Stephen Elliott, Esquire, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, and TROTT and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Gustavo Hidalgo petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying him suspension of deportation under § 244(a)(2) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(2) (repealed 1997). We deny Hi-dalgo’s petition because we agree with the Board that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act’s (“IIR-IRA”) repeal of § 244(a)(2) is not imper-missibly retroactive in his case.

The “essential inquiry” is “whether the new provision attaches new legal consequences to events completed before its enactment.” Vartelas v. Holder, — U.S. -, -, 132 S.Ct. 1479, 1491, 182 L.Ed.2d 473 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). While it is true that Hi-dalgo was powerless to alter his 1989 guilty plea, he still cannot show that IIRI-RA’s repeal of § 244(a)(2) “ranks as a ‘new disability.’ ” Id. at 1487. IIRIRA did not “alter the character of [Hidalgo’s] conviction or deny him any existing eligibility for discretionary relief.” Valencia-Alvarez v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 1319, 1330 (9th Cir.2006). Hidalgo was not statutorily eligible for relief under § 244(a)(2) at the time IIRIRA’s took effect, because he had not accrued the requisite ten years of continuous presence in the United States following his guilty plea. Thus, IIRIRA did not “attach[] new legal consequences” to his conviction. Vartelas, 132 S.Ct. at 1491.

Petition Denied. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     