
    Raudel REYNOSO-RODRIGUEZ, aka Raudel Rodriguez-Reynoso, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72342.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    Withdrawn Feb. 23, 2011.
    Resubmitted Oct. 24, 2012.
    Filed Oct. 26, 2012.
    Robin Chandler Carr, Law Office of Robin Carr, Mariana Lotfy Hanna, Law Offices of Mariana L. Hanna, San Diego, CA, Christy A. Chouteau, Esquire, Aguirre Law Group, Healdsburg, CA, for Petitioner.
    Joseph Anthony O’Connell, Oil, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, Briena Strippoli, Esquire, Trial, Remi Adalemo, Trial, Michelle Gorden Latour, Esquire, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, KLEINFELD, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Raudel Reynoso-Rodriguez petitions for review of a BIA order upholding the IJ’s decision that he is ineligible for cancellation of removal because he failed to prove that he did not commit an aggravated felony. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We reject Petitioner’s arguments and deny his petition for review.

We review de novo whether a conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony. Young v. Holder, No. 07-70949, 697 F.3d 976, 2012 WL 4074668, at *2 (9th Cir. Sept.17, 2012) (en banc). Petitioner pleaded guilty to a conjunctively worded criminal information where some of the charged conduct constituted an aggravated felony, and other-charged conduct did not. This plea to a charge worded in the conjunctive did not by itself establish that Petitioner committed each of the charged offenses. Id. at *7. But neither did it establish the contrary. Showing that the record is inconclusive does not meet Petitioner’s burden to prove that he was not convicted of an aggravated felony. Id. at *9-10. Petitioner has failed to prove his eligibility for cancellation of removal, so we deny his petition for review.

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