* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FERNANDO MIGUEL GARCIA, Petitioner,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 05-77173 Agency No. A090-080-326
MEMORANDUM *

FERNANDO MIGUEL GARCIA, Petitioner,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 06-71210 Agency No. A090-080-326

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals 

# FILED
APR 16 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable James S. Gwin, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. -2- Submitted March 12, 2010 ** San Francisco, California Before: HUG and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and GWIN, *** District Judge. Fernando Miguel Garcia, a native and c itizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeal s order affirming an Immigration Judge’s decision holding that petitioner is a removable criminal alien under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) and denying petiti oner’s applications for fu rther relief. We deny the petition in part and dismiss in part. “[R]emovability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a )(2)(B)(i) does not turn on whether the law includes solicitation offenses . Rather . . . removability under § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) turns on whether the statut e of conviction is a law relating to controlled substances.” Mielewczyk v. Holder , 575 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal citations omitted). Since California Health & Safety Code § 11352(a) “by its own terms is a state law relating to a controlled substance,” a conviction under that statute constitutes a removable offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i)-3- where the conviction “involved [ ] a federally controlled substance.” Id. at 993, 995 (quotation marks omitted). We employ the modified categorical approach to determine whether Garcia’s conviction under California Hea lth & Safety Code § 11352(a) involved a federally controlled substance. See id. at 995-96. “Under this approach, we determine whether a conviction constitute s a predicate offense for removal by examining a narrow, specified set of docum ents that are part of the record of conviction, including the indictment, the judgment of conviction, jury instructions, a signed guilty plea, or the transc ript from the plea proceedings.” Mielewczyk , 575 F.3d at 995 (quotation marks omitted). Here, both the sworn, certified criminal complaint to which Garcia pleaded guilty and the transcript of Garcia’s plea proceeding establish that Garcia’s § 11352 conviction involved cocaine, a federally controlled substance. Garcia raises additional grounds in his petition for review, but our jurisdiction is limited to “constitutional cl aims or questions of law” over the remainder of Garcia’s petition. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D). We lack jurisdiction to review what Garcia describe s as “[t]he IJ’s and BIA’s factual errors” or the IJ’s determination that Garcia fa iled to prove his eligibility for asylum. See Acewicz v. INS , 984 F.2d 1056, 1061 (9th Cir. 1993) (“Factual findings, including-4- the determination that an alien has faile d to prove his eligibility for asylum, are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard.”). Garcia’s legal and constitutional claims lack merit. The police report for pandering was admissible under 8 C.F.R. § 1240. 7(a), and even if the IJ had erred in admitting the report, it did not prejudice Garcia. See Cinapian v. Holder , 567 F.3d 1067, 1074 (9th Cir. 2009) (“To warrant a new hearing, the alien must [] show prejudice, which means that the out come of the proceeding may have been affected by the alleged violation.” (quotation marks omitted)). The record already contained proof of Garcia’s two separate felony convic tions, and the IJ gave no indication that he relied on the police report in denying Garcia’s application. Garcia was not prejudiced by the IJ’s refu sal to provide an interpreter for his mother’s testimony. The record reveals th at Garcia’s mother testified fully and competently, even eliciting praise from th e IJ at the close of her testimony. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that the IJ’s ultimate decision would have been any different had an interprete r been provided for Garcia’s mother. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.