
    Luis Alonso Bernal GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-71326
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 20, 2016
    John E. Ricci, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kiley L. Kane, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, 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

Luis Alonso Bernal Gomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision pretermitting his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Lopez-Jacuinde v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1215, 1217 (9th Cir. 2010), and- deny the petition for review.

The agency properly concluded that Bernal Gomez’ conviction under California Health & Safety Code (“CHSC”) § 11383(c)(1) was a drug trafficking aggravated felony that rendered him ineligible for cancellation of removal. See Lopez-Jacuinde, 600 F.3d at 1217-19 (a conviction under CHSC § 11383(c)(1) is categorically a drug trafficking aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B)); 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3) (a conviction for an aggravated felony renders an applicant ineligible for cancellation of removal).

Bernal Gomez contends that this court’s decision in Lopez-Jacuinde v. Holder was wrongly decided, but in the absence of an intervening Supreme Court or en banc decision, “[a] three-judge panel cannot reconsider or overrule circuit precedent.” Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 2011).

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