Case ID: f-appx_21/html/0638-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Artemio GABRIEL-VELASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
    No. 99-71065.
    I & NS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Aug. 16, 2001.
    Decided Oct. 18, 2001.
    
      Before WOOD, JR., KOZINSKI and O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Honorable Harlington Wood, Jr., Senior Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner argues that, because he entered the United States without inspection and subsequently had his status changed to that of permanent resident, he was never admitted for purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (2000). In rejecting this argument, the Board relied on its interpretation of the phrase “after admission” set out in In re Rosas-Ramirez, No. [ AXX XXX XXX ], 1999 WL 187054(BIA). We defer to the Board’s interpretation as a “permissible construction of the statute,” see INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 424, 119 S.Ct. 1439, 143 L.Ed.2d 590 (1999) (quoting Chevron U.S.A Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984)), and conclude that petitioner was convicted of an aggravated felony “after admission” to the United States, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (2000). Consequently, we lack jurisdiction to consider this claim further. Flores-Miramontes v. INS, 212 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir.2000) (a “narrow exception” to “the jurisdictional bar relating to criminal removal orders” confers only “jurisdiction to determine whether jurisdiction exists”) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Petitioner also argues that the subsequent expungement of his conviction eliminates it as a ground for removal. This argument is foreclosed by Murillo-Espinoza v. INS, 261 F.3d 771 (9th Cir.2001), which concluded that the Board’s interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A) is entitled to deference. Id. at 774; see also Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. at 424, 119 S.Ct. 1439.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.