
    Silverio Augusto CANEL-VELASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-70718.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Jan. 12, 2012.
    Filed March 2, 2012.
    Madhu Nisha Sharma, Esquire, Helen A. Sklar, Stone & Grzegorek, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Jeffrey Bernstein, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: WALLACE and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, Senior District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Silverio Augusto Canel-Velasquez petitions for review from a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.

8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(C) makes an alien statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal if the alien has been convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude. See also 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), (a)(2)(A)(ii). Canel-Velasquez conceded below that his conviction under California Penal Code § 496(a) for receipt of stolen property constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude. He now argues that his conviction for disorderly conduct involving prostitution under California Penal Code § 647(b) does not involve moral turpitude. Because a violation of section 647(b) is a crime involving moral turpitude, Rohit v. Holder, 670 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir.2012), Canel-Velasquez has been convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude and is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of re- ■ moval. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(C).

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