Case ID: f-appx_624/html/0586-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Malik Nkruman WELCH, aka Kahlil Kevin Felix, aka Khalil Felix, aka Simon Samuel, aka Samuels Simon, aka Malik Welch, aka Malik N. Welch, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-70071.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 9, 2015.
    
    Filed Dec. 15, 2015.
    Shan Potts, Potts Martinez, Attorneys At Law, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Malik Nkruman Welch, pro se.
    Aaron Nelson, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Malik Nkruman Welch, a native and citizen of Belize, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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 questions of law, Carillo v. Holder, 781 F.3d 1155, 1157 (9th Cir.2015), and deny the petition for review.

The BIA correctly concluded that Welch’s conviction under California Penal Code § 273.5(a) (2002) is a crime of domestic violence under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)®. See id. at 1157-60 (holding that the version of § 273.5(a), effective from 2001 through 2003, is categorically a crime of domestic violence, and rejecting petitioner’s claim that the scope of potential victims encompassed by the California provision is broader than the scope of the federal provision). Accordingly, the agency correctly concluded that Welch is ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b)(l)(C), 1227(a)(2)(E)®.

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