Case ID: f-appx_357/html/0135-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edgar Daniel ROSALES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71285.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 8, 2009.
    Hector Ricardo Ortega, Ortega, Canossa & Associates, PLC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Carol Federighi, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Rebecca Ariel Hoffberg, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel Phoenix, Esquire, Office of the District Director U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Edgar Daniel Rosales, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo, Sandoval-Lua v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 1121, 1126-27 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition for review.

We agree with the BIA’s conclusion that Rosales is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a) (2) (A) (iii) as an aggravated felon under because his conviction under California Penal Code § 245(a)(1) categorically constitutes a crime of violence and he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of at least one year for his crime. See United States v. Heron-Salinas, 566 F.3d 898, 899 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam) (Cal.Penal Code § 245 contains the requisite mens rea to qualify as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16).

Rosales’ remaining contentions lack merit.

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