
    Michael Levens CATHER, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-74508.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 27, 2010.
    Jan Joseph Bejar, Esquire, Law Offices of Jan Joseph Bejar, A Professional Law Corporation, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jennifer Parker Levings, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Michael Levens Cather, a native and citizen of the United Kingdom, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims, Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

Cather does not challenge the agency’s determination that he is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) based on his two 1992 convictions for lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age in violation of California Penal Code § 288(a).

The agency determined that Cather is ineligible for relief under former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996), because his ground of removability lacks a statutory counterpart in a ground of inadmissibility. See 8 C.F.R. § 1212.3(f)(5). Cather’s legal and constitutional challenges to this determination are foreclosed by Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1207, 1208 n. 7 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc); see also Aragon-Ayon v. INS, 206 F.3d 847, 853 (9th Cir.2000) (‘We are satisfied that Congress intended the 1996 amendments to make the aggravated felony definition apply retroactively to all defined offenses whenever committed.”).

In light of our disposition, we need not address Cather’s remaining contentions.

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