N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ALIC IA IVETTE FUENTES,

Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 16-73553 Age n c y No. A079-784-014
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d April 16, 2020 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B ER

ZON a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd LEM E LLE, *** Distric t Judge
. Alic ia Fue nte s pe t itions for re vie w of a n orde r of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (B IA) a ffirm ing the de c ision of a n Im m igration Judge(IJ) de ny ing he r



# FIL ED
APR 23 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The c a se ha s be e n subm itte d on the brie fs a s of April 16, 2020, pursua nt to FR AP 34(a ).

* * * The Honora

ble Ivan L.R . Le m e lle , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of Louisia na , sitting by

de signa tion.c la im s for c anc e lla tion of re m ova l a

nd post-he aring volunta

ry de pa rture . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. The a ge n c y

did not e rr in c onc luding tha t Fue nte s ’ s 2015 c onvic tion unde r
se c t ion 11377 of the

C a lifornia He a l th & Sa fe ty C ode is a c onvic t ion for viola

ting
a la w “ re lating to a

c ontrolle d substa

nc e ” unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1182(a )(2)(A)(i)(II) a nd 8 U.S.C . § 1227(a )(2)(B )(i). 1 Se c tion 11377 is divisible , a nd the re fore we a

pply the m odifie d c ate goric a l a pproa c h. C

oronado v . Holde r , 759 F.3d 977, 981, 983 (9th C ir. 2014). B e c a

use C ount 1 of thec rim ina l c om pla int c h arge d Fue nte s with unla wfully posse ssing m e t

ham phe tam ine in viola

tion of se c tion 11377 a

nd the
c ourt c a se sum

m ary c orre s ponding to the

c rim i na l c om

pla int shows tha

t Fue nte s ple a de d guilty to C o unt 1 of thec rim ina l c om pla i nt, we m ay

c onside r the fa c ts
a lle ge d in thec om

pla i nt. Se e Unite d State

s v . Torre -J

ime ne z , 771 F.3d 1163, 1168

1 The IJ re lie d on thre e of Fue nte s’ s c onvic t ions, inc luding se c tion 11377 of the C a l ifornia

He a lth a nd Sa fe t y C ode and se c tions 484 a

nd 4573 of the

C a l ifornia Pe na l C ode , in c o nc luding tha t Fue nte s wa s not e ntitle d to c anc e lla tion of re m ova l or volunta

ry de pa rture , a nd the B IA a dopte d the IJ’ s opinion. Se e Alv a re z-C e rrite no v . Se

ssions , 899 F.3d 774, 778 (9th C ir. 2018) (“ Whe re . . . the B IA a dopts theIJ’ s de c ision a nd a dds som e of its own a n a l y s is, the pa

ne l re vie ws both de c i sions.” ) (c i tation omitte d). B e c a use the c onvic tion unde r se c tion 11377 supports de nia l of re lie f, we do not re vie w the a lte rnative ba se s re lie d on by the IJ and B IA.
2(9th C ir. 2014). 2 Ac c ordingly , we c onc lude tha t Fue nte s wa s c o nvic te d of a posse s sing m e t

ham p h e tam ine , whic h is prohibite d by the C ontrolle d Substa

nc e s Ac t. C oronado , 759 F.3d a

t 986. 3 The re fore , Fue nte s’ s 2015 c o nvic tion for viola ting se c tion 11377 is a

re m ova ble offe nse “ re l ating to a

c ontrolle d substa

nc e ” unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1227(a )(2)(B )(i) and 28 U.S.C . § 1182(a )(2)(A)(i)(II). C ontra ry to Fue nte s’ s argum e nt, C oronado c orre c t ly

c o nc lude d

tha t the substa nc e s liste d

in se c tion 11377 were “ a lte rnat ive e l e m e nts tha t e ffe c tive ly

c re ate
se ve ra l diffe re nt c rim e s .” 759 F.3d a t 984 (quoting De

s c amps v . Unite d State

s , 570 U.S. 254, 263–64 (2013)) (c le ane d up), a nd is the re fore c onsiste nt with Mathis v

. Unite d State s , 136 S. C t. 2243 (2016). Se e also United State s v . Martine

z-Lope z , 864 F.3d 1034, 1038–41 (9th C ir. 2017) (e n ba nc ) (holding tha

t se c tion 11352 of the C a l ifornia

He a lth & Sa fe ty C ode , whic h is m ate ria lly ide n tic a l to se c tion 11377, is divisible). B e c a use Fue nte s ha s be e n c onvic te d of a n offe nse unde r § 1227(a )(2), she is ine l igible for c an c e lla

tion of re m ova l. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1229b(b)(1)(C ). She a lso

2 Fue nte s doe s not c ha lle nge the re lia b ility of the c a se sum

m ary , a nd so we do not re a c h tha

t issue
. S e e Unite d State

s v . Stric k land, 601 F.3d 963, 970 (9th C ir. 2010).

3 B e c a use Fue nte s’ s c onvic tion re late d to a substa nc e liste d in the fe de ra l c ontrolle d substa

nc e s sc he dule , Fue nte s’ s re lia nc e on Me llouli v . Ly nc h , 135 S. C t. 1980 (2015), is m

ispla c e d. 3c annot e sta

blish good m

ora l c ha ra c te r during thefive y e ars be fore he r a pplic ation for volunta

ry de p arture be c a

use she c om

m itte d a n offe nse liste d in § 1182(a )(2) in that tim e pe riod. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1101(f)(3). The re fore , she is ine ligiblefor volunta ry de pa rture . 8 U.S.C . § 1229c (b)(1)(B ). Ac c ordingly , the B IA and IJ did not e rr in de ny i ng Fue nte s’ s a pplic ations for c a

n c e l lation of re m ova l or volunta ry de pa rture . PE T IT IO N DE NIE D
.

4