Juan Ambriz-Gomez v. Loretta E. Lynch , 637 F. App'x 450 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 01 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN JOSE AMBRIZ-GOMEZ, No. 14-72477
Petitioner, Agency No. A046-297-480
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Juan Jose Ambriz-Gomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision determining that he was removable and denying
cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
de novo questions of law, Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 2014),
and deny the petition for review.
Ambriz-Gomez does not challenge the agency’s determination that his 2004
convictions for possession of methamphetamine in violation of California Health
& Safety Code § 11377(a) and for being under the influence of methamphetamine
in violation of California Health & Safety Code § 11550(a) constitute controlled
substance offenses. Rather, he contends that the convictions should not be deemed
convictions for immigration purposes because they were expunged, and because
they warrant Federal First Offender Act (“FFOA”) treatment.
Ambriz-Gomez concedes that his contention regarding his expunged
convictions is foreclosed by our decision in Ramirez-Castro v. INS, 287 F.3d 1172(9th Cir. 2002) (a conviction expunged under California Penal Code § 1203.4
remains a conviction for immigration purposes), and his contention regarding
FFOA treatment is foreclosed by our decision in Nunez-Reyes v. Holder, 646 F.3d
684 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[B]eing under the influence [of a controlled substance] is not
a possession crime at all, and it is thus qualitatively different from any federal
conviction for which FFOA treatment would be available.”). Ambriz-Gomez
requests that this court revisit those decisions. However, in the absence of an
intervening Supreme Court or en banc decision, “[a] three-judge panel cannot
2 14-72477
reconsider or overrule circuit precedent.” Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 677
(9th Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, the agency correctly concluded that Ambriz-Gomez’ 2004
convictions rendered him removable for having committed a controlled substance
offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-72477