Case ID: f-appx_435/html/0699-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Antonio CAMPOS-TORO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-71618.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2011.
    
    Filed June 6, 2011.
    Susan S. Azad, Esquire, Michael Eliot Elisofon, Esquire, Latham & Watkins, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for PETITIONER.
    Paul Cygnarowicz, Oil, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Antonio Campos-Toro, 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 removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cheuk Fung S-Yong v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1028, 1034 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency correctly determined that Campos-Toro’s 2006 conviction for violating California Penal Code § 273.5(a) is an aggravated felony crime of violence under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F), where he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of at least one year. See Banuelos-Ayon v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1080, 1083 (9th Cir.2010) (a conviction under California Penal Code § 273.5(a) is categorically a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a)). CamposToro 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).

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