Case ID: f-appx_381/html/0679-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rogelio GOMEZ VIVANCO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70160.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 2, 2010.
    Rogelio Gomez Vivanco, Inglewood, CA, pro se.
    David V. Bernal, Lance Lomond Jolley, Esquire, Ana T. Zablah-Monroe, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-Distriet Counsel, Esquire, Office of The District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of The District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, 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).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rogelio Gomez Vivanco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision finding him ineligible for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency properly concluded that Gomez Vivanco was ineligible for cancellation of removal because his conviction under CahPenal Code § 12025(a) constitutes a firearms offense for the purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C). See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1)(C); Valerio-Ochoa v. INS, 241 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir.2001). The expungement of the conviction pursuant to Cal.Penal Code § 1203.4 did not eliminate the immigration consequences of the conviction. See Ramirez-Castro v. INS, 287 F.3d 1172, 1174-76 (9th Cir.2002).

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