Case ID: f-appx_355/html/0993-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lizardi Magali ESTRADA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 04-76531, 05-72613.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 9, 2009.
    
      Fabian C. Serrato, Serrato Law Firm, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner.
    Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Thomas Fatouros, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-Distriet Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, 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

Lizardi Magali Estrada, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for cancellation of removal and, upon reconsideration, again dismissing her appeal. As the BIA granted Estrada’s motion to reconsider, we dismiss the petition for review in No. 04-76531. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) (jurisdiction over final orders of removal). We have jurisdiction in petition No. 05-72613 under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 649, 651 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA properly concluded that Estrada is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal based on her conviction for a crime of domestic violence. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b)(l)(C); 1227(a)(2)(E)®; see also Gonzalez-Gonzalez, 390 F.3d at 651-53. Estrada’s contention that she is eligible for cancellation because her conviction is not a crime involving moral turpitude is inapposite. Moreover, her contention that the petty offense exception applies in her case is unavailing. See Cisneros-Perez v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 386, 390 (9th Cir.2006) (petty offense exception does not apply to crimes of domestic violence).

No. 04-76531: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

No. 05-72613: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.