
    Amador Carrillo SERRANO, a.k.a Amador Serrano, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-72169.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 15, 2011.
    
    Filed June 28, 2011.
    Amador Carrillo Serrano, San Diego, CA, pro se.
    
      Jeffrey Bernstein, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Amador Carrillo Serrano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se 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 constitutional claims and questions of law, Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency correctly determined that Serrano’s conviction for second degree robbery in violation of California Penal Code § 211 is an aggravated felony crime of violence under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F), where he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years. See Nieves-Medrano v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1057, 1058 (9th Cir.2010) (a conviction under CaLPenal Code § 211 is categorically a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a)); see also Renteria-Morales v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 1076, 1083 (9th Cir.2008) (“[W]e do not use the categorical and modified categorical approach to determine whether a petitioner has met any sentencing requirement specified in § 1101(a)(43).”); United States v. Jimenez, 258 F.3d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir.2001) (“The fact that this term of imprisonment was not imposed until after he violated his probation is not legally significant.”).

Serrano’s due process claim is also unavailing. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).

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