
    Alberto AGUIRRE-DIAZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-72529.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Jan. 21, 2014.
    
    Filed Jan. 23, 2014.
    John Martin Pope, Pope & Associates, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Kristin Moresi, OIL, 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, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alberto Aguirre-Diaz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 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 legal determinations regarding eligibility for cancellation of removal. Sinotes-Cruz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1190, 1194 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

Aguirre-Diaz conceded that he was confined to more than 180 days of pretrial detention credited against his six-month sentence, and that he is unable to establish good moral character under Arreguin-Moreno v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 1229 (9th Cir.2008). Thus the agency correctly determined that Aguirre-Diaz failed to establish the requisite good moral character to qualify for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(7) (a petitioner cannot meet the good moral character requirement if confined 180 days or more in a penal institution); Arreguin-Moreno, 511 F.3d at 1233 (holding “that when pre-trial detention is credited against the sentence imposed upon conviction, the period of pretrial detention must be considered as confinement as a result of a conviction within the meaning of § 1101(f)(7)”).

Aguirre-Diaz’s attempts to distinguish his case from Arreguin-Moreno are unavailing because he was sentenced to more than 180 days following his conviction, regardless of whether he should have been given bail before his conviction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(7).

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