Luis Olmos-Alcaraz v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 24 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS ALBERTO OLMOS-ALCARAZ, No. 18-73307
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-952-747
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 21, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Luis Alberto Olmos-Alcaraz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
questions of law. Gomez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2005).
We deny the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Olmos-Alcaraz does not challenge the BIA’s
determination that he waived any argument concerning the length of his residence
in the United States at the time he committed the offense of identity theft. See
Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not
specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
The BIA did not err in concluding that Olmos-Alcaraz is statutorily
ineligible for cancellation of removal based on his 2010 conviction for identity
theft under California Penal Code (“CPC”) § 530.5(c)(1). See 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) (setting out the requirements for a crime involving moral
turpitude to constitute a deportable offense); 1229b(b)(1)(C) (listing convictions
that limit eligibility for cancellation of removal). Olmos-Alcaraz’s contention that
his conviction is no longer disqualifying for cancellation of removal purposes
under an amendment to CPC § 18.5 is foreclosed by Velasquez-Rios v. Wilkinson,
988 F.3d 1081, 1089 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that “California's amendment to
§ 18.5 of the [CPC], which retroactively reduces the maximum misdemeanor
sentence to 364 days for purposes of state law, cannot be applied retroactively for
purposes of § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)”). Thus, Olmos-Alcaraz’s cancellation of removal
claim fails.
2 18-73307
The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 18-73307