Leticia Rodriguez Ramirez v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 469 F. App'x 569 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 27 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LETICIA RODRIGUEZ RAMIREZ, No. 10-70903
Petitioner, Agency No. A092-814-901
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2012 **
San Francisco, California
Before: TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, and ADELMAN, District
Judge.***
Leticia Rodriguez Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming
*
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).
***
The Honorable Lynn S. Adelman, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting by designation.
without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for
cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
1. We lack jurisdiction to review the order of removal entered against
Petitioner because her 2006 conviction for possession of methamphetamine in
violation of California Health and Safety Code § 11377(a) renders her removable
by reason of having committed a controlled substance offense covered by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(C). See Cruz-Aguilera v. INS, 245 F.3d 1070, 1073 (9th Cir. 2001).
2. Petitioner challenges the IJ’s determination that she committed an
aggravated felony, making her ineligible for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3). We lack jurisdiction to review a final order of removal based
upon an aggravated felony conviction. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). We do,
however, retain jurisdiction to determine whether a conviction constitutes an
aggravated felony as a matter of law. Prakash v. Holder, 579 F.3d 1033, 1035 (9th
Cir. 2009).
In 2003, Petitioner pled guilty to a violation of California Welfare and
Institutions Code § 10980(c). For this offense, she was placed on probation and
ordered to pay $12,637 in restitution. Therefore, according to our decision in
Ferreira v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2004), abrogated on other
2
grounds by Nijhawan v. Holder, 129 S.Ct. 2294, 2302-03 (2009), Petitioner was
convicted of an aggravated felony.
3. We retain jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s due process claim. 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (providing for review of constitutional claims); Ram v.
Mukasey, 529 F.3d 1238, 1240 (9th Cir. 2008). Petitioner argues that the BIA
violated her right to due process when it refused to accept her late-filed brief. An
individual in removal proceedings has a constitutional right to fair proceedings that
allow her reasonably to present her case. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1013
(9th Cir. 2010). Here, the BIA did not abuse its discretion or deprive Petitioner of
due process when it denied her leave to file a late brief after giving her prior notice
of the briefing schedule. See id. at 1013-14.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3