Agusto Soto-Cesar v. Eric Holder, Jr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 05 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
AGUSTO SOTO-CESAR, a.k.a., Cesar No. 12-73511
Agusto Soto, a.k.a Cesar Augusto Soto-
Alvarado, Agency No. A074-790-779
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Agusto Soto-Cesar, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for
*
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).
cancellation of removal and special-rule cancellation of removal under the
Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”). Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law.
Banuelos-Ayon v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1080, 1082 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA correctly concluded that Soto-Cesar’s 2006 conviction under
California Penal Code § 273.5(a) constitutes a crime of domestic violence under
8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) that disqualifies him from eligibility for cancellation of
removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). See Banuelos-Ayon, 611 F.3d at 1085. Soto-
Cesar’s assertion that his offense was only a misdemeanor does not alter this
conclusion. See 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) (defining a “crime of violence” without
requiring a felony conviction); Vasquez-Hernandez v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1053, 1056
(9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that the petty-offense exception to inadmissibility
under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii) is unavailable to cancellation applicants who
possess a conviction for a crime of domestic violence).
Soto-Cesar waived any challenge to the BIA’s denial of asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture by failing to raise
any argument regarding these issues. See Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993,
997 (9th Cir. 2007).
2 12-73511
The court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s factual determination that
Soto-Cesar is ineligible for NACARA relief. See Ixcot v. Holder, 646 F.3d 1202,
1213 (9th Cir. 2011).
In light of our disposition, we need not reach Soto-Cesar’s remaining
contentions that he merits relief because his other convictions were also
misdemeanors and that his removal will cause extreme hardship to him and his
family. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.
3 12-73511