eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2010-07

Solis Olvera v. Holder , 385 F. App'x 772 ( 2010 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                            FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JUL 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN SOLIS OLVERA,                               No. 06-72516
Petitioner,                        Agency No. A079-587-732
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted June 17, 2010
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and STOTLER **, Senior
District Judge.
Juan Solis Olvera, a native and citizen of Mexico, appeals the Board of
Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Alicemarie H. Stotler, Senior United States District
Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
of his application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b).
Petitioner contends the BIA erred in ruling that his conviction for willfully
discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent manner rendered him statutorily
ineligible for cancellation of removal.
The BIA did not err. Aliens who commit “[c]ertain firearm offenses” cannot
obtain cancellation of removal.
    8 U.S.C. §§ 1227
    (a)(2)(C), 1229b(b)(1)(C).
Petitioner’s conviction for willfully discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent
manner in violation of California Penal Code § 246.3 is a firearms offense that
renders him statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. See Gonzalez-
Gonzalez v. Ashcroft,
    390 F.3d 649
    , 652 (9th Cir. 2004); Valerio-Ochoa v. INS,
    241 F.3d 1092
    , 1095 (9th Cir. 2001). We need not consider Petitioner’s argument
that he is eligible for relief because he used a firearm for “cultural purposes.” This
claim was never presented to the BIA and we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See
Barron v. Ashcroft,
    358 F.3d 674
    , 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
Petitioner also argues that this court should overrule Gonzalez-Gonzalez. A
three-judge panel cannot, however, overrule a case unless there has been some
intervening controlling authority. See Miller v. Gammie,
    335 F.3d 889
    , 899-900
(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Petitioner has pointed to no intervening authority that
undermines our decision in Gonzalez-Gonzalez.
2
The petition for review is DENIED.
3