Case ID: f-appx_501/html/0675-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Andrew Sudesh NARAYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72601.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
    
    Filed Dec. 21, 2012.
    Saad Ahmad, Fremont, CA, for Petitioner.
    Karen L. Melnik, Trial, Oil, 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: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Andrew Sudesh Narayan, a native and citizen of the United Kingdom, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order denying Narayan’s motion to terminate. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing de novo questions of law, Morales-Garcia v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir.2009), we deny the petition for review.

The agency properly concluded that Na-rayan’s conviction under section 273.5(a) of the California Penal Code constitutes a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”) because a modified categorical analysis of the record of conviction establishes that Narayan was convicted of inflicting corporal injury upon his spouse. See United States v. Leal-Vega, 680 F.3d 1160, 1168-69 (9th Cir.2012) (holding that a criminal complaint, read together with other judicially noticeable documents, may be considered under the modified categorical analysis if no ambiguity exists in the record of conviction to conclude that the defendant was convicted of a generic federal offense); Morales-Garcia, 567 F.3d at 1065 (affirming that spousal abuse constitutes a CIMT).

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