Case ID: f-appx_381/html/0682-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Porfirio ANGELES-MARTINEZ, a.k.a. Porfirio Angelas-Martinez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74732.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 2, 2010.
    Gloria Martinez-Senftner, Esquire, The Martinez-Senftner Law Firm, Roseville, CA, for Petitioner.
    Oluremi Olatokunbo Adalemo, Esquire, Trial, John C. Cunningham, Esquire, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Porfirio Angeles-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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, Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

The record establishes that Angeles-Martinez was convicted of possession of marijuana for sale in violation of California Health & Safety Code § 11359. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(48)(A), 1229a(c)(3)(B)(v). The agency therefore properly concluded that Angeles-Martinez is inadmissable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) and ineligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(h), 1229b(b)(l)(C).

As this conclusion is dispositive, we do not address Angeles-Martinez’s remaining contentions.

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