
    Aleksandr Nikolayevich KHAVRENKO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-70325.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Sept. 11, 2014.
    Filed Oct. 24, 2014.
    Matthew Harrison Green, Esquire, Tucson, AZ, for petitioner.
    Andrea Gevas, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: WALLACE, SCHROEDER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Aleksandr Nikolayevich Khavrenko petitions us to review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (Board) dismissal of his appeal. That appeal was from an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision holding him removable as charged and ineligible for cancellation of removal because he was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, which stopped the clock on his way to fulfilling the seven-year continuous residency requirement for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(2), (d).

Ordinarily, we lack jurisdiction to review Board removal orders “against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed a criminal offense covered in section 1182(a)(2),” including crimes involving moral turpitude. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). However, we have jurisdiction to review “constitutional claims or questions of law.” Id. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Thus, we have jurisdiction to determine, and we review de novo, whether Khavrenko’s conviction qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude. Tall v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 1115, 1118-19 (9th Cir.2008).

“A crime having as an element the intent to defraud is clearly a crime involving moral turpitude.” Id. at 1119. California Penal Code section 470(d) requires proof of “intent to defraud.” Accordingly, CPC § 470(d) is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude. Consequently, Khavren-ko’s conviction under CPC § 470(d) within five years of admission to the United States renders him ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) because it prevents him from meeting the seven-year continuous residency requirement.

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