NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 23 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ERIK CANO-PEREZ, AKA Erik Cano, No. 17-70000

Petitioner, Agency No. A079-804-256 v.

MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 18, 2019** Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Erik Cano-Perez, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying cancellation of removal and asylum and related relief. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). deny the petition for review.

We do not consider Cano-Perez’s contentions that the agency applied the incorrect statutory definition to determine his Nevada conviction for forgery is an aggravated felony or that it erred in making an adverse credibility determination, where the agency did not find him removable for having an aggravated felony conviction, deny relief on that basis, or make an adverse credibility finding. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court’s review is limited to the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA). We also do not consider Cano-Perez’s contention that the IJ erred in considering factors for cancellation of removal for certain non-permanent residents under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b), where the BIA considered only the factors for cancellation of removal for permanent residents under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). See id. at 986.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 17-70000