Juan Carrillo Cruz v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 452 F. App'x 750 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 6 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN CARRILLO CRUZ, No. 09-73147
Petitioner, Agency No. A044-334-442
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 27, 2011 **
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Juan Carrillo Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
*
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).
We review de novo questions of law, S-Yong v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1028, 1034 (9th
Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
Carrillo Cruz correctly contends that his conviction under California Health
& Safety Code § 11351, for possession of a controlled substance for sale, is not
categorically a controlled substance offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), or a
drug trafficking aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). See S-Yong,
600 F.3d at 1034 (“We have previously found that California law regulates the
possession and sale of many substances that are not regulated by the [federal
Controlled Substances Act]”).
Carrillo Cruz, however, provides no coherent argument in his opening brief
as to how the conviction documents are insufficient to demonstrate that his
conviction constitutes a removable controlled substance offense, and a drug
trafficking aggravated felony, under the “modified categorical approach.” See id.
at 1035. Accordingly, we deem the issue waived and deny the petition for review.
See San Diego Unified Port Dist. v. Gianturco, 651 F.2d 1306, 1319 n.36 (9th Cir.
1981) (deeming issue waived where briefing contained little more than an assertion
of error and court was “left to guess precisely what [appellants] meant to argue”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-73147