
    Sergio PONCE-GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-74778.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 4, 2012.
    Peter J. Musser, Esquire, Peter James Musser A Professional Corporation, Vista, CA, for Petitioner.
    David V. Bernal, Esquire, Liza S. Murcia, Esquire, OIL, Colette J. Winston, Esquire, 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. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sergio Ponee-Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying his motion to reopen. We review de novo questions of law, Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 921 (9th Cir.2007), and we dismiss the petition for review.

Ponce-Gutierrez’s contention that he is not deportable because his convictions have been expunged is unavailing, regardless of the date the expungement took effect. See Ramirez-Castro v. INS, 287 F.3d 1172, 1175 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that a conviction expunged in 1993 under California law retained its adverse immigration consequences). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the order of deportation against Ponce-Gutierrez because he is deportable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) on the basis of two convictions under California Penal Code § 273.5(a), for which a sentence of at least one year may be imposed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 998 n. 5 (9th Cir.2007) (8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) applies to the court’s review of the denial of a motion to reopen).

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