Juan Ramos v. Loretta E. Lynch , 627 F. App'x 661 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
DEC 23 2015
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN BERNARDO RAMOS, No. 12-74243
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-492-438
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA LYNCH, Attorney General
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of
The Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 11, 2015**
Pasadena, California
Before: GOULD and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and ZOUHARY,*** District
Judge.
* 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).
*** The Honorable Jack Zouhary, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
Juan Ramos challenges the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for adjustment
of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for
review.
The BIA reasonably concluded Ramos’ November 2006 drug conviction, for
which he received a $50 fine, was a “conviction” under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48) (“The
term ‘conviction’ means . . . the alien has entered a plea of guilty . . . and the judge has
ordered some form of punishment[ or] penalty . . . .”). As the Supreme Court has
observed, the terms “punishment” and “penalty” “each undeniably embrace [criminal]
fines.” S. Union Co. v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2344, 2351 (2012).
Ramos relies on Retuta v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2010), where this
Court held that “an unconditional suspended non-incarceratory sanction that has no
present effect is not a punishment, penalty, or restraint” under Section 1101(a)(48).
Id. at 1190. But unlike in Retuta, Ramos’ fine was not suspended. And the rule of
lenity is also unavailing, as Ramos fails to show any persisting ambiguity in Section
1101(a)(48) that would trigger its application. See Rodriguez v. Holder, 619 F.3d
1077, 1080 n.3 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Since we hold that the statute is not ambiguous, the
rule of lenity does not apply.”).
2
The BIA reasonably concluded Ramos is ineligible for a waiver of
inadmissiblity or adjustment of status.
DENIED.
3