Case ID: f-appx_474/html/0698-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alberto Antonio REYES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72327.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 17, 2012.
    
    Filed July 24, 2012.
    Claudia Jasmine Lopez, Esquire, Law Offices of Mendez & Lopez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Oil, Zoe Jaye Heller, Esquire, Trial, 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: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alberto Antonio Reyes, a native and citizen of Panama, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“LJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Ramirez-Villalpando v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir.2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA correctly determined that Reyes’ conviction under California Health and Safety Code § 11378 constituted an aggravated felony which rendered him statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(B); 1229b(a)(3); United States v. Strickland, 601 F.3d 963, 968-69 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc).

Reyes’ contention that the IJ abused her discretion in denying a continuance is moot because his motion to vacate his criminal conviction was denied. See Pedroza-Padilla v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 1362, 1364 n. 2 (9th Cir.2007).

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of voluntary departure. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).

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.