
    Norberto BALLESTEROS FRIAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-73887.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 23, 2010.
    James G. Roche, Law Offices of James G. Roche, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner.
    Joshua E. Braunstein, Richard Zanfardi-no, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, 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, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Norberto Ballesteros Frias, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing de novo, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.2004), we deny the petition for review.

Contrary to his contention, Ballesteros Frias is not eligible to apply for relief under former section 212(c), because he has not been admitted as a legal permanent resident. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996) (providing relief only to “[ajliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence”); 8 C.F.R. § 1212.3(f)(1) (“An application for relief under former section 212(c) of the Act shall be denied if: (1) The alien has not been lawfully admitted for permanent residence.”).

Ballesteros Frias’ contention that he received insufficient notice regarding exclusion proceedings fails because he was placed in removal, not exclusion, proceedings. He fails to establish any prejudice from his treatment as an arriving alien. See Simeonov, 371 F.3d at 538 (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).

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