Case ID: f-appx_474/html/0551-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ricardo CASAS-MILIAN, a.k.a. Ricardo Milian Casas, a.k.a. Ricardo Millian, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-72696.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    Filed July 5, 2012.
    Michael Franquinha, Aguirre Law Group APC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
    James Eugene Grimes, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ricardo Casas-Milian, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Ramirez-Villalpando v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir.2011), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA correctly concluded that Ca-sas-Milian is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and (B)(i) as a result of his conviction under California Health and Safety Code § 11378. Contrary to Casas-Milian’s contention, the charging document and abstract of judgment submitted by the government are sufficient to establish that his offense involved methamphetamine, a substance controlled under federal law. See id. at 1041 (using an abstract of judgment in combination with a charging document to establish that a conviction was for a removable offense); see also Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1189 (9th Cir.2011) (stating that methamphetamine is a federally-controlled substance).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.