Case ID: f-appx_633/html/0389-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Victor Noel SILLAS-IRIBE, aka Lerma Victor Urias, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-72715.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
    
    Filed Jan. 27, 2016.
    Victor Noel Sillas-Iribe, Corona, CA, pro se.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anna Nelson, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Victor Noel Sillas-Iribe, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir.2012), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA correctly concluded that Sillas-Iribe’s conviction under California Health & Safety Code § 11350(a) is for a crime “relating to a controlled substance,” rendering him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2) (A) (i)(II), where the plea agreement refers to “Count 1: 11350(a)” and count 1 of the felony complaint specifies cocaine. See 21 U.S.C. § 812(c), sched. II(a)(4); Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977, 986 (9th Cir.2014) (“Where the minute order or other equally reliable document specifies that a defendant pleaded guilty to a particular count of a criminal complaint, the court may consider the facts alleged in the complaint.”); United States v. Torre-Jimenez, 771 F.3d 1163, 1168-69 (9th Cir.2014) (“the phrase ‘as charged in the Information (or Indictment)’ is not required where the documents are unambiguous”).

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