Case ID: f-appx_411/html/0977-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Oscar Flaviano SALGADO-OCAMPO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70332.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 24, 2011.
    Antonio Reyna Salazar, Esq., Salazar Law Offices, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-Distriet Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization, Service Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Oscar Flaviano Salgado-Ocampo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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, Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

Salgado-Ocampo does not challenge the agency’s determination that his conviction for violating Wash. Rev.Code § 9A.44.083 constitutes aggravated felony sexual abuse of a minor under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A). Salgado-Ocampo’s contention that his conviction qualified for treatment under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act and should not have been used to sustain the charge of removability is foreclosed by Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 922-23 (9th Cir. 2007).

Respondent shall serve a copy of this disposition on Salgado-Ocampo at his last known address.

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