
    Pablino Cardona MONDRAGON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 06-73231, 06-75331.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 29, 2010.
    Martin Avila Robles, Esq., Law Office of Martin Resendez Guajardo, P.C., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Eric W. Marsteller, Esq., M. Jocelyn Wright, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated petitions for review, Pablino Cardona Mondragon, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims. Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir.2009). We deny the petitions for review.

Mondragon does not challenge the agency’s determination that he is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) based on his conviction for lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age in violation of California Penal Code § 288(a).

The agency determined that Mondragon is ineligible for relief under former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996), because his ground of removability lacks a statutory counterpart in a ground of inadmissibility. See 8 C.F.R. § 1212.3(f)(5). Mondragon’s legal and equal protection challenges to this determination are unavailing. See Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1206, 1208 n. 7 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc).

Mondragon has waived any challenge to the BIA’s October 19, 2005, order denying his motion to reconsider.

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