
    Fernando O. PEREYRA-SAAVEDRA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-72919.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 11, 2013.
    
    Filed Feb. 13, 2013.
    Fernando O. Pereyra-Saavedra, Van Nuys, CA, pro se.
    Stefanie N. Hennes, Kristofer Ryan McDonald, Esquire, 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: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Fernando O. Pereyra-Saavedra, a native and citizen of Bolivia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying Pereyra-Saavedra’s application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1189 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision to deny Pereyra-Saavedra’s application for cancellation of removal, because his pleadings before the IJ establish that he is an arriving alien who is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) due to his theft conviction under California Penal Code § 487(c). See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(13)(C)(v), 1252(a)(2)(C); see also Pagayon, 675 F.3d at 1189 (holding that a petitioner’s pleading-stage admissions and concessions may be sufficient to establish removability). Pereyra-Saave-dra does not raise a colorable constitutional claim or question of law sufficient to establish our jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir.2009) (“To be colorable in this context ..., the claim [or question] must have some possible validity.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also Sawyers v. Holder, 684 F.3d 911, 912 (9th Cir.2012) (per curiam) (rejecting a petitioner’s imputation argument concerning his parent’s residence).

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