Case ID: f-appx_656/html/0350-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Minerva Leticia AVILES-OCAMPO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-70859
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 26, 2016 
    
    FILED August 02, 2016
    Zulu Ali, Law Office of Zulu Ali, Riverside, CA, for Petitioner
    Edward Earl Wiggers, Esquire, Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, 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

Minerva Leticia Aviles-Ocampo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo legal claims, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004), and deny the petition for review.

Aviles-Ocampo does not challenge the agency’s dispositive determination that her petty theft with priors convictions constitute crimes involving moral turpitude that render her statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(B)-(C); Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in an opening brief are waived).

We reject Aviles-Ocampo’s contention that the BIA engaged in improper fact-finding in determining she was not eligible for cancellation of removal and declining to remand to the immigration judge.

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Aviles-Ocampo’s remaining contention regarding whether her convictions constitute aggravated felonies. See Simeonov, 371 F.3d at 538.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not, appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.