Case ID: f-appx_707/html/0870-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Erick Oswaldo Alvarez ARIAS, Erick O. Alvarez, AKA Erick Oswaldo Alvarez, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-73038
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 20, 2017
    Larry Liem, Doan, Attorney, Law Offices of Larry L. Doan, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner
    Andrew Jacob Oliveira, Trial Attorney, OIL, 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: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Erick Oswaldo Alvarez Arias, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying cancellation of removal, asylum, and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo whether an offense qualifies as an aggravated felony. Carlos-Blaza v. Holder, 611 F.3d 583, 587 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Alvarez Arias’ conviction for possession of marijuana for sale under California Health and Safety Code § 11359 is categorically an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C; § 1101(a)(43)(B). See Roman-Suaste v. Holder, 766 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding conviction under statute to be a categorical aggravated felony after considering Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 US 184, 133 S.Ct. 1678, 185 L.Ed.2d 727 (2013)). Accordingly, the agency did not err in finding him ineligible for cancellation of removal and asylum. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), (b)(2)(B)(i); 1229b(a).

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