Maria Vitela-De Villanueva v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                           FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                             JUL 21 2015
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    MARIA ISABEL VITELA-DE                           No. 10-73905
    VILLANUEVA, AKA Maria Vitela De
    Damian,                                          Agency No. A075-611-367
    Petitioner,
    MEMORANDUM*
    v.
    LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted July 9, 2015**
    Pasadena, California
    Before:        REINHARDT, TASHIMA, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    Maria Vitela-de Villanueva (“Vitela”) petitions this court for review of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming her removability under
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
    oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
    INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i), 
    8 U.S.C. § 1182
    (a)(6)(A)(i), and her ineligibility for
    cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).
    Vitela pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance under 
    Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11377
    (a). She subsequently failed to comply with the terms of
    her grant of deferred entry of judgment under 
    Cal. Penal Code § 1000
     et seq., and
    the trial court “render[ed] a finding of guilt” against her in accordance with the
    earlier plea. Because of her failure to abide by the terms of the deferred judgment
    program, Vitela would have been ineligible for relief under the Federal First
    Offender Act had she been prosecuted in federal court. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3607
    (a).
    Accordingly, the subsequent expungement of her conviction did not eliminate its
    immigration consequences. See Estrada v. Holder, 
    560 F.3d 1039
    , 1042 (9th Cir.
    2009). The BIA thus did not err in concluding that Vitela was ineligible for
    cancellation of removal under § 1229b(b)(1) for having been convicted of a crime
    “relating to a controlled substance.” 
    8 U.S.C. § 1182
    (a)(2)(A)(i)(II).
    The petition for review is DENIED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-73905

Judges: Reinhardt, Tashima, Clifton

Filed Date: 7/21/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024