Case ID: f-appx_396/html/0436-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Singh H. SOHAL-KULVINDER, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72554.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 23, 2010.
    Singh H. Sohal-Kulvinder, Eloy, AZ, pro se.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Colette Jabes Winston, Esquire, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, John Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Singh H. Sohal-Kulvinder, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The IJ properly determined that Sohal-Kulvinder was removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) for having been convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude not arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct. See Cuevas-Gaspar v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 1013, 1020 (9th Cir.2005) (“[Cjrimes of theft or larceny are crimes involving moral turpitude.”). A waiver for this ground of removability was unavailable to Sohal-Kulvinder. See Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701, 706 (9th Cir.2010); Garcia-Jimenez v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir.2007) (an alien cannot receive both cancellation of removal and § 212(c) relief).

Sohal-Kulvinder’s remaining contention is not persuasive.

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