Case ID: f-appx_467/html/0559-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Alberto GUTIERREZ-CERVERA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-73838.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
    
    Filed Jan. 24, 2012.
    Jose Alberto Gutierrez-Cervera, Santa Maria, CA, pro se.
    Jacob Bashyrov, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Alberto Gutierrez-Cervera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Szalai v. Holder, 572 F.3d 975, 978-79 (9th Cir.2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency properly concluded that Gutierrezr-Cervera is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii) where he was convicted twice under CaLPenal Code § 273.6(a) for knowingly and intentionally violating a protection order. See Alanis-Alvarado v. Holder, 558 F.3d 833, 839 — 40 (9th Cir.2009) (state court need not find that alien actually had engaged in violent, threatening, or harassing behavior, but that alien violated “the portion of a protection order that involves protection against” violence, threats, or harassment).

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)®.

Respondent’s motion to strike Exhibit A from Gutierrez-Cervera’s opening brief is granted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4).

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