Fernando Zuniga v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 09 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FERNANDO ZUNIGA, AKA Fernando No. 13-72578
Sanchez,
Agency No. A072-122-680
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 6, 2015**
Pasadena, California
Before: KLEINFELD, McKEOWN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Fernando Zuniga, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
*
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).
1
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §
1252 and reviewing de novo, Latter–Singh v. Holder, 668 F.3d 1156, 1159 (9th
Cir. 2012), deny the petition for review.
The BIA correctly determined that Zuniga is statutorily ineligible for
cancellation of removal because his convictions for grand theft under California
Penal Code § 487, United States v. Esparza-Ponce, 193 F.3d 1133, 1136–37 (9th
Cir. 1999), and for petty theft with a prior under §§ 484 and 666, Castillo-Cruz v.
Holder, 581 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 2009), are categorically crimes of moral
turpitude. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), 1229b(b)(1)(C).
Zuniga’s argument that his grand theft conviction was more than thirteen
years prior to his application for cancellation of removal is foreclosed by Flores
Juarez v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 1020, 1022 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Zuniga
therefore does not qualify for the petty offenses exception because he has been
convicted of more than one crime of moral turpitude. See 8 U.S.C. §
1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II).
2
Zuniga’s claim that the IJ violated his due process rights because the IJ did
not allow Zuniga to present evidence that his removal would result in hardship to
his United States citizen children fails because Zuniga was statutorily ineligible for
cancellation of removal. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000).
PETITION DENIED.
3