
    Miguel RAMOS-CHAVEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-72199.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 9, 2005.
    
    Decided Jan. 12, 2006.
    Alejandro Garcia, City of Commerce, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Hillel Smith Fax, Anthony W. Norwood, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KOZINSKI and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and HOLLAND, Senior District Judge.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument.
    
    
      
       The Honorable H. Russel Holland, Senior District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Miguel Ramos-Chavez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming the immigration judge’s denial of Ramos-Chavez’s application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. ‘We review de novo whether an alien has been convicted of an aggravated felony, but our review is subject to established principles of deference to administrative agencies.” Parrilla v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir.2005) (internal citations omitted). Ramos-Chavez’s conviction under California Penal Code § 32 is an aggravated felony because it is “an offense relating to obstruction of justice ... for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year[J” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S); see also, In re Batistar-Hernandez, 21 I. & N. Dec. 955, 961-62 (BIA 1997). Because Ramos-Chavez has been convicted of an aggravated felony, he is not statutorily eligible for cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     