Juan Roldan v. William Barr ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 16 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN MOZO ROLDAN, No. 16-73681
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-212-710
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Juan Mozo Roldan, 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 decision denying his motion to terminate removal
proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
questions of law, including whether a petitioner was convicted of an offense
*
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).
relating to a controlled substance. Cabantac v. Holder, 736 F.3d 787, 792 (9th Cir.
2013). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency properly denied Roldan’s motion to terminate, where he is
removable due to his conviction for an offense related to a controlled substance.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). The plea agreement and judgment minutes, read
in conjunction with the complaint, show Roldan’s conviction for possession of a
controlled substance under California Health and Safety Code (“CHSC”)
§ 11377(a) involved methamphetamine. See Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977,
984-85 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that CHSC § 11377(a) is divisible and subject to
the modified categorical approach); United States v. Martinez-Lopez, 864 F.3d
1034, (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (on revisited analysis in light of intervening
Supreme Court precedent, holding that a similar California controlled substance
statute is divisible with respect to the listed substances); Cabantac, 736 F.3d at
793-94 (Under the modified categorical approach, where “the abstract of judgment
or minute order specifies that a defendant pleaded guilty to a particular count of the
criminal complaint or indictment, we can consider the facts alleged in that
count.”); 21 U.S.C. § 812(c) sched. III(a)(3) (methamphetamine is a controlled
substance under the Controlled Substances Act); United States v. Torre-Jimenez,
771 F.3d 1163, 1169 (9th Cir. 2014) (the phrase “as charged in the Information (or
Indictment)” is not necessary where the documents are unambiguous).
2 16-73681
We lack jurisdiction to review Roldan’s unexhausted contentions regarding
the applicability of Mellouli v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 1980 (2015), that he pleaded to an
amended charge or that his charge may have been amended, that the state court did
not specify a controlled substance in his charging documents, or that he admitted to
the allegations and conceded the charge of removability in the notice to appear.
See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to
review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before
the BIA.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 16-73681