Pedro Alonso v. Eric H. Holder Jr. , 519 F. App'x 420 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PEDRO ALONSO, a.k.a. Pedro Morfin No. 08-71874
Alonso,
Agency No. A092-187-124
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Pedro Alonso, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Ramirez-Villalpando v.
*
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).
Holder, 645 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
The agency correctly determined that Alonso was convicted of an
aggravated felony drug trafficking crime as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B)
that renders him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The record of
conviction establishes that Alonso was convicted of possession for sale of a
controlled substance in violation of California Health & Safety Code § 11378 with
a sentencing enhancement under § 11370.4(b)(1) because he possessed more than 1
kilogram of a substance containing methamphetamine, amphetamine or
phencyclidine and its analogs. See 21 C.F.R. § 1308.12(d)(2); Rendon v. Mukasey,
520 F.3d 967, 976 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[P]ossession of a controlled substance with the
intent to sell contains a trafficking element and is an aggravated felony.”); see also
Ramirez-Villalpando, 645 F.3d at 1040-41 (using an abstract of judgment in
combination with the charging document to establish that a conviction was for a
removable offense).
The agency correctly determined that Alonso’s aggravated felony conviction
renders him statutorily ineligible for asylum, cancellation of removal, and
voluntary departure, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), B(i), 1229b(a)(3),
1229c(b)(1)(C), and he has not established eligibility for any other form of relief.
2 08-71874
In light of our disposition, we need not reach Alonso’s contentions regarding his
additional conviction and the remaining ground of removability.
Alonso’s contention that the IJ violated due process by denying him an
opportunity to present evidence is not supported by the record where Alonso
declined the opportunity to present additional information. See Lata v. INS, 204
F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due
process claim).
Alonso’s challenge to his bond proceedings are not properly before this
court. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(d).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 08-71874