Rafael Santoyo-Garcia v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 2 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAFAEL SANTOYO-GARCIA, No. 14-73938
Petitioner, Agency No. A092-783-335
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Rafael Santoyo-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
cancellation of removal and ordering him removed. Our jurisdiction is governed by
*
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).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Coronado v. Holder, 759
F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Santoyo-Garcia’s conviction under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11377(a),
for possession of methamphetamine, constitutes a controlled substance violation
that renders him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). See United States v.
Martinez-Lopez, 864 F.3d 1034, 1036, 1041 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (holding that
a similar California controlled substance statute is divisible with respect to the
listed substances); Coronado, 759 F.3d at 984-86 (holding that a § 11377(a)
conviction for possession of methamphetamine was a controlled substance
violation under the modified categorical approach).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal
as a matter of discretion, where Santoyo-Garcia does not raise a colorable legal or
constitutional claim that would invoke our jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B), (D); Planes v. Holder, 652 F.3d 991, 999 (9th Cir. 2011)
(dismissing petition challenging discretionary denial of cancellation of removal for
failure to raise a colorable legal or constitutional challenge).
We deny Santoyo-Garcia’s motions for appointment of counsel (Docket
Entry Nos. 25 & 26).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 14-73938