Gil Abadejos v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 1 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GIL T. ABADEJOS, AKA Gil Abaoejos, No. 13-71697
Petitioner, Agency No. A074-351-845
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Gil T. Abadejos, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Coronado v. Holder,
*
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).
759 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The agency correctly concluded that Abadejos’s 2012 drug-possession
conviction under California Health & Safety Code § 11377(a) is for a controlled-
substance violation that renders him statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status
as an alien inadmissible to the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II),
where a modified-categorical analysis of the criminal complaint, read in
conjunction with the minute order, establishes that Abadejos’s conviction relates to
the federally controlled substance of methamphetamine. See id. at 985-86 (reading
a criminal complaint in conjunction with the court minutes to conclude that the
petitioner’s conviction under section 11377(a) related to methamphetamine); see
also Esquivel-Garcia v. Holder, 593 F.3d 1025, 1029-30 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[A]n
alien can only be eligible for adjustment of status if the alien is ‘admissible to the
United States for permanent residence.’” (citation omitted)).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Abadejos’s unexhausted contention that the
IJ did not afford him enough time to seek post-conviction relief. See Tijani v.
Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal
claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA.”).
2 13-71697
We also lack jurisdiction to review in these proceedings Abadejos’s request
for release from immigration custody on the condition of bond. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(e); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(d); Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th
Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 13-71697