Case ID: f-appx_698/html/0454-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rafael SANTOYO-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-73938
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 26, 2017 
    
    OCTOBER 2, 2017
    Rafael Santoyo-Garcia, Gadsden, AL, pro se.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Laura M.L. Maroldy, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rafael Santoyo-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal and ordering him removed. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Santoyo-Garcia’s conviction under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11377(a), for possession of methamphetamine, constitutes a controlled substance violation that renders him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). See United States v. Martinez-Lopez, 864 F.3d 1034, 1036, 1041 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (holding that a similar California controlled substance statute is divisible with respect to the listed substances); Coronado, 759 F.3d at 984-86 (holding that a § 11377(a) conviction for possession of methamphetamine was a controlled substance violation under the modified categorical approach).

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion, where Santoyo-Gar-cia does not raise a colorable legal or constitutional claim that would invoke our jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), (D); Planes v. Holder, 652 F.3d 991, 999 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissing petition challenging discretionary denial of cancellation of removal for failure to raise a colorable legal or constitutional challenge).

We deny Santoyo-Garcia’s motions for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry Nos. 25 & 26).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.