
    Marco Antonio VELASCO-ACEVES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-75615.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 16, 2010.
    
    Filed April 1, 2010.
    Zachary McCready, Esquire, Law Offices of Zachary J. McCready, Los Ange-les, CA, for Petitioner.
    Marco Antonio Velasco-Aceves, Huntington Park, CA, pro se.
    Patrick James Glen, Esquire, OIL, Avi-va Poczter, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Marco Antonio Velasco-Aceves, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1159, 1163 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Contrary to Velasco-Aceves’ contention, he does not qualify for relief under the Federal First Offender Act (“FFOA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3607, because he previously received the state-law equivalent of FFOA relief with respect to his 1984 charge. See de Jesus Melendez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1019, 1026 (9th Cir.2007) (alien may not avoid the immigration consequences of a drug conviction as a first offender when, as a result of a prior drug possession arrest, he was granted pretrial diversion under California law and was not required to plead guilty).

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.
     