
    Constantino Colorado HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-72381
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 13, 2018 
    
    Filed February 21, 2018
    Alexander H. Lubarsky, Esquire, Attorney, Community Legal Centers, San Ma-teo, CA, for Petitioner
    Chief Counsel ICE; Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Aaron Nelson, Trial Attorney, Shahrzad Baghai, Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Constantino Colorado Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo whether a conviction constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude. Tall v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err in determining that Colorado Hernandez’s convictions under California Penal Code §§ 350(a)(1) and 647(b) are crimes involving moral turpitude, and therefore that he is ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C) (aliens convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude are not eligible for cancellation of removal). We are not persuaded by Colorado Hernandez’s contentions that precedent establishing his convictions are crimes involving moral turpitude do not control. In Tall v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2008), the court held that a conviction under California Penal Code § 350(a), including all subsections, is a crime involving moral turpitude, and in Rohit v. Holder, 670 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2012), the court analyzed only whether California Penal Code § 647(b) is a crime involving moral turpitude, notwithstanding any related crimes.

We do not address Colorado Hernandez’s contentions that Tall and Rohit were wrongly decided, because a three-judge panel lacks authority to' overrule prior precedent. See De Mercado v. Mukasey, 566 F.3d 810, 816 (9th Cir. 2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     