Case ID: f-appx_357/html/0846-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rodolfo HERRERA MENA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73671.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 8, 2009.
    Rodolfo Herrera Mena, Costa Mesa, CA, pro se.
    Karen Y. Stewart, Esquire, Kathryn McKinney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, 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

Rodolfo Herrera Mena, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo whether a particular conviction constitutes an aggravated felony, Randhawa v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.

The IJ properly determined that Herrera Mena is removable as an aggravated felon under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) because his conviction under California Health & Safety Code § 11351 was for “illicit trafficking in a controlled substance” as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). See Rendon v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 967, 976 (9th Cir.2008) (“[Possession of a controlled substance with the intent to sell contains a trafficking element and is an aggravated felony.”). We reject Herrera Mena’s contention that the record of conviction was insufficient to establish that his conviction related to a federally controlled substance. See United States v. Alvarez, 972 F.2d 1000, 1005-06 (9th Cir.1992), overruled on other grounds by Kawashima v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir.2008).

Petitioner’s remaining contentions lack merit.

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