Case ID: f-appx_358/html/0882-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MEMORANDUM \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

J. Refugio CEJA-RIVERA, aka Jose Rivera, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71782.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 7, 2009.
    Susan E. Hill, Esq., Hill Piibe & Ville-gas, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC — District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Jesse Bless, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Refugio Ceja-Rivera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision finding him ineligible to adjust status due to his controlled substance offenses. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing de novo the agency’s legal determination, see Aguiluz-Arellano v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 980, 983 (9th Cir.2006), we deny the petition for review.

We deny as moot Ceja-Rivera’s request to hold this case in abeyance for proceedings in de Jesus Melendez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir.2007), r’hearing denied.

We agree with the agency’s conclusion that Ceja-Rivera’s second controlled substance offense is not amenable to treatment under the Federal First Offenders Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3607. See id. at 1025-27. Ceja-Rivera’s contention that his second offense does not constitute a conviction for immigration purposes is not persuasive. See id.

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