
    Romaldo GARCIA-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-70179.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
    
    Filed Dec. 21, 2012.
    Romaldo Garcia-Garcia, pro se.
    Dalin Riley Holyoak, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, OIL, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of The Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Romaldo Garcia-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing de novo questions of law, Cabantac v. Holder, 693 F.3d 825, 826 (9th Cir.2012) (per curiam), we deny the petition for review.

The agency correctly concluded that Garcia-Garcia was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal due to his conviction for possession of a controlled substance in violation of section 11377(a) of the California Health and Safety Code, see Esquivel-Garcia v. Holder, 593 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir.2010) (observing that a conviction for a controlled-substance violation renders an alien statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal), because a modified categorical analysis of the criminal complaint, read in conjunction with the transcript of his plea hearing, establishes that Garcia-Garcia’s conviction relates to the federally controlled substance of methamphetamine, see Cabantac, 693 F.3d at 826 (concluding that a petitioner had suffered a conviction for a controlled-substance violation where judicially noticeable documents indicated that he had pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine).

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