
    Joselito CASTRO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72652.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Nov. 19, 2010.
    Debra Jade Mundel, Marks & Acalin, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jeffery R. Leist, Trial, Russell John Verby, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Joselito Castro, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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 and constitutional claims, Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

Castro does not challenge the agency’s determination that he is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) based on his 1994 conviction for lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age in violation of California Penal Code § 288(a).

The BIA correctly determined that Castro is ineligible for relief under former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996), because his ground of removability lacks a statutory counterpart in a ground of inadmissibility.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). Castro’s legal and constitutional challenges to this determination are foreclosed by Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1207, 1208 n. 7 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc) (per curiam).

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