Case ID: f-appx_437/html/0546-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Armando CORONADO-FERRA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-70639.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2011.
    
    Filed June 8, 2011.
    Alejandro Garcia, Law Offices of Alejandro Garcia, Commerce, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Lyle Davis Jentzer, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief 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

Armando Coronado-Ferra, 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 removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Castillo-Cruz v. Holder, 581 F.3d 1154, 1158-59 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA properly applied the modified categorical approach in determining that Coronado-Ferra’s 2008 conviction under CaLPenal Code § 666 was a generic theft offense within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) where the record of conviction establishes that he was not convicted of theft by false pretenses. See Carrillo-Jaime v. Holder, 572 F.3d 747, 751-53 (9th Cir.2009). Coronado-Ferra is therefore removable as an aggravated felon under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(A)(iii) and ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3).

In light of our disposition, we need not reach his 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.