
    Cesar HERNANDEZ-CARRANZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-73507.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 21, 2014.
    
    Filed Jan. 23, 2014.
    Cesar Hernandez-Carranza, Huntington Beach, CA, pro se.
    Lindsay M. Murphy, Trial, 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: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Cesar Hernandez-Carranza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and review for substantial evidence factual determinations. Lopez-Cardona v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1110, 1111 (9th Cir.2011). We deny the petition for review.

Hernandez-Carranza does not dispute that his conviction for grand theft/embezzlement under California Penal Code § 487(a)/508 with a 214-day sentence is a crime involving moral turpitude. This conviction is final for immigration purposes, and the validity of this conviction is not properly before us. See Planes v. Holder, 652 F.3d 991, 996 (9th Cir.2011); Ramirez-Villalpando v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir.2011) (“A petitioner may not collaterally attack his state court conviction on a petition for review of a BIA decision.”). Accordingly, the BIA eorrectly determined that Hernandez-Carranza is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal due to his conviction. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), 1229b(b)(l)(C).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Hernandez-Carranza has not established eligibility for any other form of relief or protection from removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(A).

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