Case ID: f-appx_305/html/0419-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Javier CEBALLOS, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-74711.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.
    
    Filed Dec. 29, 2008.
    Nicholas W. Marchi, Esq., Carney & Marchi, PS, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, William C. Erb, Jr., Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, TROTT, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Javier Ceballos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s deportation order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1159, 1163 (9th Cir.2006). Reviewing de novo, id., we deny the petition for review.

The agency correctly determined that Ceballos is ineligible for relief under the Federal First Offender Act (“FFOA”) because his conviction was not for simple possession of a controlled substance. See de Jesus Melendez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1019, 1024 (9th Cir.2007) (FFOA applies to “cases involving first-time simple possession of narcotics”). Ceballos’ due process contention therefore fails, as he was deportable as a controlled substance offender, see 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2)(B)© (1995), and ineligible for a waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h).

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