Edgar Lezcas-Fernandez v. William Barr

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 20 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDGAR ABRAHAM LEZCAS- No. 16-73664
FERNANDEZ,
Agency No. A200-902-240
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 14, 2020**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Edgar Abraham Lezcas-Fernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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. Latter-Singh v. Holder, 668 F.3d 1156, 1159 (9th Cir. 2012).
We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err in concluding that Matter of Leal, 26 I. & N. Dec. 20(BIA 2012), which held that a conviction for felony endangerment under Arizona
Revised Statutes § 13-1201 is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude,
applies retroactively. See Olivas-Motta v. Whitaker, 910 F.3d 1271, 1276-79 (9th
Cir. 2018) (concluding that Matter of Leal did not represent a change in the law
and therefore applies retroactively).
Petitioner’s challenge to the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii)
is likewise foreclosed. See Olivas-Motta, 910 F.3d at 1281 (rejecting argument
that 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), as interpreted by the BIA in Matter of Leal, is
unconstitutionally vague).
Petitioner also contends that this court’s decision in Leal v. Holder, 771 F.3d
1140 (9th Cir. 2014) was incorrectly decided, but the panel lacks authority to
overrule that decision. See De Mercado v. Mukasey, 566 F.3d 810, 816 (9th Cir.
2008) (a three-judge panel lacks authority to overrule prior precedent).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 16-73664