
    Anthony Luna ELISEO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-71233.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 5, 2012.
    
    Filed March 7, 2012.
    Lori Beth Schoenberg, John Perry & Associates, Encino, CA, for Petitioner.
    Brianne Whelan Cohen, Ada Elsie Bosque, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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: PREGERSON, GOULD, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Anthony Luna Elíseo (“Elíseo”), a native and citizen of the Philippines, and a legal permanent resident of the United States, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order finding removability. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

Eliseo’s conviction for violating California Health and Safety Code § 11378 is an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B); see Cazarez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 905, 919 (9th Cir.2004) (a state drug offense is an aggravated felony for immigration purposes if it contains a trafficking element). Contrary to Eliseo’s contention, the record of conviction namely the admission to the charges alleged by the Department of Homeland Security established that Elíseo was convicted of § 11878, possession for sale of a controlled substance, to wit methamphetamine. See Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1189, 2011 WL 6091276, *4 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that “an alien’s concession of removability or admission of facts establishing removability, if accepted by the IJ completely relieves the government of the burden of producing evidence”).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.

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