Case ID: f-appx_400/html/0220-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alejandro Higinio VALDIVIEZO-AGUILAR, aka Alex Higinio Valdiviezo-Aguilar, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-71787.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 5, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 20, 2010.
    Nicolas J. Estrada, Esquire, Law Office of Nicolas J. Estrada, Redondo Beach, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Richard Zanfardino, Trial, Thomas J. Gullo, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel lee, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CUDAHY, WARDLAW and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Richard D. Cudahy, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alejandro Higinio Valdiviezo-Aguilar petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) conclusion that he is removable under INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) as an alien convicted of committing an offense “relating to a controlled substance.” The IJ also determined that Valdiviezo-Aguilar is removable under INA § 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) as an alien present in the United States and not in possession of any valid entry document. Valvidezo-Aguilar did not contest that basis for finding removability before the BIA; nor does he challenge it in his petition for review before us. Because Valdiviezo-Aguilar is removable in any event under INA § 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), we would be unable to provide any effective relief even if we were to decide the merits of his § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) claim in his favor. Accordingly, Valdiviezo-Aguilar’s petition for review is moot, and must be dismissed. See Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Fed. Express Corp., 558 F.3d 842, 846-47 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Pub. Util. Comm’n v. FERC, 100 F.3d 1451, 1458 (9th Cir.1996)).

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