Case ID: f-appx_669/html/0367-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Carlos RAMOS-GOMEZ, aka Jose Aceves, aka Jose Ramos, aka Jose Carlos Ramos, aka Jose Carlos Ramosqomez, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-71337
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 13, 2016 
    
    FILED September 21, 2016
    Mario Acosta, Jr., Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Mario Acosta, Jr., Los Ange-les, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Jennifer R. Khouri, Attorney, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: HAWKINS, N.R: SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Carlos Ramos-Gomez, 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, Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 2014), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA correctly concluded that Ramos-Gomez is removable because his conviction under California Penal Code § 273.5 is a categorical crime of domestic violence under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). See Carrillo v. Holder, 781 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[California Penal Code] § 273.5 is categorically a crime of domestic violence within the meaning of [8 U.S.C.] § 1227(a)(2)(E)®.”).

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Ramos-Gomez’s contention that his conviction 4s not an aggravated felony crime of violence.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,