Case ID: f-appx_550/html/0408-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wendy Colima ARROYO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-72833.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
    
    Filed Dec. 18, 2013.
    Andres Z. Bustamante, Law Offices of Andres Z. Bustamante, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Deitz P. Lefort, Trial, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Wendy Colima Arroyo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Morales-Alegria v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 1051, 1053 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA correctly concluded that Colima Arroyo’s conviction under California Penal Code § 476, which resulted in a one-year prison sentence, constitutes an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(R) that renders her statutorily ineligible to seek cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3); see also Morales-Alegria, 449 F.3d at 1058 (a conviction under California Penal Code § 476 is categorically a forgery offense).

Colima Arroyo’s challenge to this court’s decision in Morales-Alegria also fails. See Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 677 (9th Cir.2011) (A three-judge panel cannot reconsider or overrule circuit precedent with exceptions not relevant here).

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