
    Luis Antonio GARCES-SOTO, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-60053
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 12, 2009.
    
      Lisa S. Brodyaga, Refugio de Rio Grande, San Benito, TX, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, E.M. Trominski, District Director, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service District Directors Office, Harlingen, TX, for Respondent.
    Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Luis Antonio Garces-Soto (Garees) petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal from a final order of removal. Garees asserts that the BIA erred when it denied him a waiver of inadmissibility under former § 212(c) (8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1996)) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and a suspension of deportation.

Garees argues that he is eligible for a § 212(c) waiver of inadmissibility on a nunc pro tunc basis and that the BIA erred as a matter of law in holding that it lacked the authority to grant such a waiver. Garees is not entitled to nunc pro tunc relief. See Vo v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 363, 366-67 (5th Cir.2007).

Garees also argues that he is eligible for a § 212(c) waiver because there is a comparable ground of inadmissibility in § 212(a), namely a crime involving moral turpitude, for his conviction of sexual abuse of a minor. Garces’s arguments are foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See Avilez-Granados v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 869, 871-72 (5th Cir.2007).

Garees further argues that the BIA erred in concluding that he was not eligible for a suspension of deportation under former 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(2). Garees also contends that because the BIA failed to specifically adopt the reasoning and set forth its own reasons for finding Garees ineligible for a suspension of deportation, the matter should be remanded to the BIA for further consideration. Garees cannot satisfy the go.od moral character requirement of former § 1254(b) because he was convicted of an aggravated felony (sexual abuse of a minor) in 1993. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(8).

Accordingly, Garce's’s petition for review is DENIED, and Garces’s motion to stay is DENIED AS MOOT. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     