Case ID: f-appx_358/html/0877-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MEMORANDUM \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Fernando MEDINA-LARIOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 05-71408.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 7, 2009.
    Reynold E. Finnegan, Esq., Finnegan & Diba a Law Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Michele Y.F. Sarko, Esq., Carol Federighi, Esq., M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, 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

Fernando Medina-Larios, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.

Medina-Larios’ contention that his convictions do not render him ineligible for cancellation of removal because they occurred over ten years prior to his application is foreclosed by Flores-Juarez v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 1020, 1022 (9th Cir.2008) (“[Section] 1229b(b)(l)(C) ... does not place any temporal limitation on when the crime was committed.”).

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