T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2)(C ).

T he H onor abl e L y nn S . A de l m a n, U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f orthe ** * E a s t e rn D i s tr i c tof

W i s c ons i n, s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T M ARI A G UA DA LUPE VA LE NZUELA GA R C I A, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J R ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 06- 70543 A ge nc yN o. A 070- 917- 665 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry17, 2012 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: T A S H IM A and S IL V E R M A N , C i rc ui tJudg es , and A D E L M A N , D i stri ct Judg e. *** 

# FI LED FEB 27 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

M a r i aV a l e nz ue l aG a r c i a , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons f

or r e vi e w of

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) di s m i s s a l of he rappe a l f

r om an Im m i grat i on Judg e’ s ( “ IJ ”) deni al of her app l i ca t i on for c ance l l at i on of re m ov al or , a l t e rna t i ve l y , vol unt a ryde pa rtur e . T he s c ope of ourj ur i s di c t i on i s gove rne d by 8 U. S . C . § 1 2 5 2 . We d i s m i s s th e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. 1. V al enzuel a G ar ci a f i rs tcont ends thatthe offens e of w hi ch she w as c o n v i c t e d , av i o l a t i o n o f Ca l . W e l f

. & I n s t . Co d e § 1 0 9 8 0 ( c ) ( 2 ) , w a s n o tac r i me i nvol vi ng m or a l turpi tude ( “ C I M T ” ) tha tr e nde r e d he ri ne l i gi bl e f orc a nc e l l a t i on of r e m o v a l. V a le n z u e laG a r c iae x h au s te dh e ra d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s w ith r e s p e c t to thi s c l a i m . A l though s he di d notm e nt i on the i s s ue i n he rappe a l t o the B I A , the B I A s till a d d r e s s e dit. T h a t s a tis f ie dth e e x h au s tio n r e q u ir e m e n t. See Ki n v. H older , 59 5 F . 3d 10 50 , 10 55 (9th C i r. 20 10 ). O n the m er i t s, ho w ever , V al enzuel a G ar ci a’ s argum enti s f orec l osed by ou r de c i s i on i n Fe rr e ir a v . A s h c r o ft , 3 9 0 F .3 d1 0 9 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) , ab roga ted on other grou nd s by N i j ha w an v. H

older , 129 S . C t . 2294, 2302- 03 ( 2009) . I n Ferrei ra , w e h e ldth a t th e s a m e p r o v is io n th a t V a le n z u e laG a r c iaw a s c o n v ic te do f v io la tin g , § 1 0 9 8 0 , c o n ta in s a n e le m e n t o f f r au d . I d. at10 96 -97. S uch o ff ense s are c a te g o r ic a llyC I M T s . See P lan es v. H older , 652 F . 3d 991, 997- 98 ( 9th C i r . 2011) ( r e a f f irm in g th e “lo n g s ta n d in g ru le th a t c r im e s th a t h a v e f r au da s a n e le m e n t . . .V al enzuel a G ar ci a r equest s a tt orney’ s f ee s pursuantt o the E qu al 1 A cc es s t o Just i ce A ct . B utE A JA fe es can o nl y be aw ar ded “ t o a prevai l i ng party, ” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 4 1 2 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( A ) , w h ic h V a le n z u e laG a r c iais n o t. 3 ar e c at egori ca l l y c ri m es i nv ol vi ng m oral turpi tud e” ). W e there fore l ac k ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w th e o r d e ro f r e m o v a l a g a in s t V a le n z u e laG a r c ia . See 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(a) (2)( C ). 2. V a l e nz ue l aG a r c i aa l s o c ha l l e nge s the de ni a l of he rr e que s tf

or vo l un t ary departure, as prem i se d o n the erroneou s a ss um pt i on thatshe had been c o n v i c t e do f

a n a g g r a v a t e df

e l o n y . T h e I J ’ s d e c i s i o n , h o we v e r , r e s t e do n two i nd ependentgrou nd s, the se cond of w hi ch w as pu re l y di sc re t i on ary, and the B IA a f f irm e dth a t d is c r e tio n a ryd e c is io n . W e la c kju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w c h a lle n g e s to di sc re t i on ary deni al s of vol un t ary departure. 8 U . S . C . §§ 12 52 (a )( 2)(B ), 12 29 c( f) ; G i l v. H older , 65 1 F . 3d 10 00 , 10 06 (9th C i r. 20 11 ). 1 P E T I T I ON F OR R EVI EW DI S MI S S E D.