
    Janak SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74202.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 2, 2010.
    Martin Avila Robles, Immigration Practice Group, a Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Blair O’Connor, Assistant Director, OIL, Briena Strippoli, Esquire, Jennifer Paisner Williams, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    
      Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Janak Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Aguilar Gonzalez v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

We reject Singh’s contention that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) violated the confidentiality provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, 8 U.S.C. § 1255a(c)(5), by reviewing Singh’s legalization application before initiating proceedings against him. It is undisputed that DHS discovered Singh’s identity and non-citizen status during a raid that was unrelated to his legalization application. DHS did not violate the confidentiality provision when it subsequently verified the denial of Singh’s legalization application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255a(c)(5)(D)(i) (information' derived from the legalization application that is not available from any other source, other than information furnished by an applicant, may be used for the purposes of immigration enforcement).

Singh’s remaining contention lacks merit.

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