
    Porncha SUVANASARN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-76675.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 15, 2013.
    
    Filed Jan. 16, 2013.
    Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Stender & Lappin, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    District Counsel Phoenix, Esquire, Office of the District Director U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Shelley Goad, Senior Litigation Counsel, Oil, DOJ-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: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Porncha Suvanasarn, a native and citizen of Thailand, 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. We review de novo questions of law, Ramirez-Villalpando v. Holder, 645 F.Sd 1035, 1038 (9th Cir.2011), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency correctly determined that Suvanasarn’s conviction for grand theft under California Penal Code § 487(a) constitutes an aggravated felony theft offense because the record of conviction establishes that Suvanasarn pled guilty to grand theft of personal property. See id. at 1040-41 (using an abstract of judgment in combination with the charging document to establish that a conviction was for a removable offense).

Suvanasarn’s contention that his conviction cannot constitute an aggravated felony theft offense because he may have been convicted as an aider and abettor is foreclosed by Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 185, 127 S.Ct. 815, 166 L.Ed.2d 683 (2007) (a theft offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) for which an alien may be removed includes the crime of aiding and abetting a theft offense),

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     