
    Nelson DOMINGUEZ-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70214.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 26, 2010.
    Glen Alan Prior, Esquire, Pacific Law Inc., PS, Fife, WA, for Petitioner.
    John Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kiley L. Kane, Esquire, Trial, OIL, Julie Suzanne Pfluger, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of The District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Esquire, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of The District Counsel Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nelson Dominguez-Sanchez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision pretermitting his application for Temporary Protected Status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional and legal questions, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

We reject Dominguez-Sanchez’s contention that the BIA improperly entered a removal order in the first instance. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1178 & n. 2 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc) (“[WJhere the BIA reverses an IJ’s grant of relief that, by definition, follows an initial determination by the IJ that the alien is in fact removable, an order of deportation has already been properly entered by the IJ.”).

We also reject Dominguez-Sanchez’s contention that the IJ violated his statutory and constitutional right to counsel by issuing a written decision granting him the only form of relief for which he was eligible.

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