
    Arturo SERAFIN-HERRERA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-75952.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 13, 2007.
    
    Filed Aug. 21, 2007.
    Arturo Serafín-Herrera, Eloy, AZ, pro se.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., Shelley R. Goad, Esq., Luis E. Perez, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Arturo Serafín-Herrera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1159, 1163 (9th Cir.2006). Reviewing de novo, id., we deny the petition for review.

Serafin-Herrera’s contention that his conviction under CaLPenal Code § 422 is not a crime of violence is foreclosed by Rosales-Rosales v. Ashcroft, 347 F.3d 714, 717 (9th Cir.2003) (concluding that “there is [no] way that petitioner here could have violated § 422 without committing a ‘crime of violence’ ”).

Serafin-Herrera’s contention that the government improperly relied on the abstract of judgment recording his guilty plea is unpersuasive, as the modified categorical approach does not apply to his conviction. Id.; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(B)(v) (including detailed abstracts of judgment among permissible forms of “proof of a criminal conviction”).

In light of our disposition, we need not reach Serafin-Herrera’s contention regarding his conviction under CaLPenal Code § 273d(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.
     