Jose Guevara v. Loretta E. Lynch , 611 F. App'x 452 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 04 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MAURICIO GUEVARA, No. 09-73793
Petitioner, Agency No. A073-956-747
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Jose Mauricio Guevara, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision finding him ineligible for cancellation of
removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
*
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).
questions of law, Mielewczyk v. Holder, 575 F.3d 992, 994 (9th Cir. 2009), and we
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA correctly determined that Guevara’s conviction for violating
California Health and Safety Code § 11360(a) is a state law relating to a controlled
substance under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) that renders him statutorily
ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C). See
Mielewczyk, 575 F.3d at 994-98 & n.1 (finding the plain language of § 11352(a), a
statute “largely identical” to § 11360(a), relates to a controlled substance, and “the
distinction between a generic solicitation statute or one specifically aimed at
controlled substances is critical when our inquiry is whether the statute of
conviction is a state law relating to controlled substances”).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Guevara’s contention regarding the Federal
First Offender Act because he failed to exhaust this contention before the agency.
See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
Guevara’s remaining contentions are without merit.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 09-73793