
    WAI KWONG NG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-70594.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. '
    Submitted Oct. 10, 2014.
    
    Filed Oct. 31, 2014.
    Marco A. Garzón, Surowitz & Argume-do, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Jeffrey Ronald Meyer, Esquire, DOJ-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: O’SCANNLAIN, THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Wai Kwong Ng, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, native of Hong Kong, and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to consider Ng’s claim that the agency erred in its determination that he was ineligible for withholding of removal on the basis of his commission of a particularly serious crime, and we review the agency’s determination for abuse of discretion. See Arbid v. Holder, 700 F.3d 379, 383 (9th Cir.2012) (per cu-riam). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Ng was ineligible for withholding of removal. The BIA determined that Ng was ineligible under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Convention Against Torture because of his conviction of a particularly serious crime, in this case second degree robbery, a felony under California Penal Code § 211.

To determine whether a criminal conviction qualifies as a particularly serious crime, the agency considers “the nature of the conviction, the type of sentence imposed, and the circumstances and underlying facts of the conviction.” In re R-A-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 657, 659 (BIA 2012) (quoting In re N-A-M-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 336, 342 (BIA 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted)). The BIA considered the statutory elements of the offense and specific conduct Ng engaged in to reach the conclusion that he committed a particularly serious crime and was therefore ineligible for withholding of removal. Here, the IJ and BIA concluded that Ng’s offense, a robbery of an elderly, blind, quadriplegic person in a wheelchair, was a particularly serious crime. The BIA specifically considered Ng’s mental health when it found him ineligible for withholding of removal, and determined it did not mitigate the underlying facts and other circumstances of his offense. The BIA provided a well-reasoned justification for denying Ng’s petition for withholding of removal and did not act arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law.

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