Eddy Lester-Walker v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 03 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDDY ARNOLDO LESTER-WALKER, No. 09-71918
a.k.a. Eddy Lester, a.k.a. Eddy Renaldo
Lester, a.k.a. Eddy Reynaldo Lester, a.k.a Agency No. A018-624-142
Eddy Lester-Walker,
Petitioner, MEMORANDUM *
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2013 **
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Eddy Arnoldo Lester-Walker, a native and citizen of Costa Rica, petitions
pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
*
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).
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his
application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review de novo whether a conviction constitutes an aggravated felony.
Ramirez-Villalpando v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the
petition for review.
The BIA correctly concluded that Lester-Walker’s convictions under
California Penal Code § 666 for petty theft with prior convictions constitute
convictions for aggravated-felony theft offenses under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G)
that bar him from eligibility for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(a)(3); see also Ramirez-Villalpando, 645 F.3d at 1039 (“[W]e have
defined generic theft as ‘a taking of property or an exercise of control over
property without consent with the criminal intent to deprive the owner of rights and
benefits of ownership, even if such deprivation is less than total or permanent.’”
(citation omitted)); United States v. Rivera, 658 F.3d 1073, 1076 (9th Cir. 2011)
(“[A] recidivist sentence may be considered in determining whether a prior
conviction qualifies as a predicate offense.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-71918