
    Juan Solis OLVERA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-72516.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted June 17, 2010.
    Filed July 1, 2010.
    Kevin M. Crabtree, Esquire, Law Office of Robert L. Lewis, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.
    Juan Solis Olvera, Bakersfield, CA, pro se.
    
      Nancy Ellen Friedman, Trial, Kerry Ann Monaco, Trial, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and STOTLER , Senior District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Alicemarie H. Stotler, Senior United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Solis Olvera, a native and citizen of Mexico, appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). Petitioner contends the BIA erred in ruling that his conviction for willfully discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent manner rendered him statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal.

The BIA did not err. Aiens who commit “[c]ertain firearm offenses” cannot obtain cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(2)(C), 1229b(b)(l)(C). Petitioner’s conviction for willfully discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent manner in violation of California Penal Code § 246.3 is a firearms offense that renders him statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. See Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 649, 652 (9th Cir.2004); Valerio-Ochoa v. INS, 241 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir.2001). We need not consider Petitioner’s argument that he is eligible for relief because he used a firearm for “cultural purposes. This claim was never presented to the BIA and we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

Petitioner also argues that this court should overrule Gonzalez-Gonzalez. A three-judge panel cannot, however, overrule a case unless there has been some intervening controlling authority. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 899-900 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc). Petitioner has pointed to no intervening authority that undermines our decision in Gonzalez-Gonzalez.

The petition for review is DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     