Case ID: f-appx_288/html/0331-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ulises PEREZ-CORTEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70642.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 14, 2008.
    
    Filed July 22, 2008.
    Joubin Nasseri, Nasseri Law Group, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    U.S. Department of Justice Civil, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, 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: SCHROEDER, LEAVY and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order af-fii’ming the pretermission of petitioner’s application for cancellation of removal.

The BIA found petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal because his conviction under California Penal Code § 273.5(a) was for a crime of domestic violence under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)®.

Petitioner does not dispute that he has been convicted under California Penal Code § 273.5(a) for willful infliction of corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant, or that his conviction constitutes a crime of domestic violence under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)®. Further, because petitioner’s conviction for a crime of domestic violence rendered him ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(C), the BIA did not need to reach the issue of whether petitioner could establish good moral character or continuous physical presence for purposes of cancellation of removal. Cf. Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 649, 653 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, respondent’s motion for summary disposition is granted.

This court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of petitioner’s application for voluntary departure. See Garcia v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir. 2004).

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