Raul Cuyun-Rosales v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 03 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAUL U. CUYUN-ROSALES, No. 11-73631
Petitioner, Agency No. A030-440-281
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2013 **
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Raul U. Cuyun-Rosales, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Delgado-Hernandez 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).
697 F.3d 1125, 1126 (9th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). We dismiss the petition for
review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s removal order because Cuyun-
Rosales’s conviction for kidnapping under California Penal Code § 207(a)
categorically constitutes an aggravated-felony crime of violence under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(43)(F) that renders him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (eliminating jurisdiction to review removal orders
predicated on convictions for aggravated felonies); see also Delgado-Hernandez,
697 F.3d at 1133 (“[A]n ordinary kidnapping under [California Penal Code]
§ 207(a) is a crime of violence because it results in a substantial risk of force.”).
Cuyun-Rosales contends that his offense does not categorically constitute a
crime of violence because the statute of conviction is both overbroad and missing
an element of the generic definition of kidnapping. Because this court’s case law
forecloses Cuyun-Rosales’s contentions, they are not questions of law sufficiently
colorable to invoke our jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). See Mendez-
Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2009) (“To be colorable in this
context , . . . the claim [or question] must have some possible validity.” (citation
omitted)); see also Delgado-Hernandez, 697 F.3d at 1127 (“Because [California
2 11-73631
Penal Code] § 207(a) is categorically a crime of violence, we need not rely on the
modified categorical analysis.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
3 11-73631