Case ID: f-appx_418/html/0672-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gumesindo ARANZAZU-GARCIA, a.k.a. Gumecindo Aranzuza, a.k.a. Gumesindo Garcia, a.k.a. Gumesindo Garcia Aranzuza, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72718.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed March 7, 2011.
    Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Jacob Bashyrov, Esquire, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, AZP-District Director, Office of the District Director, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gumesindo Aranzazu-Garcia, 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 (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1040 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), and we deny the petition for review.

The IJ properly determined that Aranzazu-Garcia’s conviction for violating Cal.Penal Code § 243.4(a), for which he was sentenced to at least one year imprisonment, constituted an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F). See Lisbey v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 930, 933-34 (9th Cir.2005). Aranzazu-Garcia is therefore removable as an aggravated felon, see 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), and statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3).

In light of our disposition, we need not reach Aranzazu-Garcia’s remaining contention.

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