
    Mark Levy CAMPOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73280.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 16, 2010.
    
    Filed March 24, 2010.
    Mark Levy Campos, El Centro, CA, pro se.
    Thomas Fatouros, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAS-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of The District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of The District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mark Levy Campos, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision finding him removable and pretermitting his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Rendon v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency properly determined that Campos is removable as an aggravated felon under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) because his conviction under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11351 was for “illicit trafficking in a controlled substance” as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). See Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 16, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005) (charging document and transcript of plea colloquy may be used for modified categorical analysis); Rendon, 520 F.3d at 976 (“[P]ossession of a controlled substance with the intent to sell contains a trafficking element and is an aggravated felony.”). Campos therefore is ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3).

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