N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT AGUSTO SOTO-C ESAR , a .k.a ., C e sa r Agusto Soto, a .k.a

C e sar Augusto SotoAlva ra do, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-73511 Age n c y No. A074-790-779 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

Nove m b e r 19, 2013 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, TR OTT, a nd THOM AS, C irc uit Judge s. Agusto Soto-C e s ar, a

nat ive an d c itiz e n of Gua te m a l a , pe titions pro se

for re vie w of a

n orde r of the B oa

rd of Im m igrat ion Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing his a pplic at ions for 

# FIL ED

D EC 05 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l a

nd spe c ia l-rule c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l unde r the Nic ara gua

n Adjustm e nt a

nd C e ntra l Am e ric a

n R e lie f Ac t (“

NAC AR A” ). Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w de novo que stions of la w. Banue los-Ay on v . Holde r , 611 F.3d 1080, 1082 (9th C i r. 2010). W e de ny in pa rt and dismi ss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w. The B IA c orre c t ly

c onc lude d tha

t Soto-C e sa

r’ s 2006 c onvic tion unde r C a lifornia Pe na l C ode § 273.5(a) c onstitute s a c rim e of dom e stic viole nc e unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) that disqua l ifie s him from e ligibility

for c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1229b(b). Se e B a nue los-Ay on , 611 F.3d at 1085. SotoC e sa r’ s a sse rtion tha

t his offe nse wa s only

a m i sde m e anor doe s not a l te r this c onc lusion. Se e18 U.S.C . § 16(a ) (de fining a “ c rim e of viole nc e ” without re quiring a

fe lony c onvic tion); Vasque

z-He rnande

z v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1053, 1056 (9th C ir. 2010) (c onc luding tha t the pe tty -offe nse e xc e ption to inad m issibility unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii) is una va ila ble to c anc e lla

tion a pplic ants who posse s s a c onvic tion for a c rim e of dom e s tic viole nc e ). Soto-C e sa

r wa ive d a

ny c ha lle nge to the B IA’ s de nia l of a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a

nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Agai nst Tortureby fa i ling to ra ise any argum e nt re ga

rding the se issue s. Se eGhahre mani v . Gonzale s , 498 F.3d 993, 997 (9th C i r. 2007). 1 2 - 7 3 5 1 1 2The c ourt la c ks jurisdic tion to re vie w the B IA’ s fa c tua l de te rm ination tha t Soto-C e sa

r is ine ligiblefor NAC AR A re lie f. S

e e Ix c ot v . Holde r , 646 F.3d 1202, 1213 (9th C ir. 2011). In light of our disposition, we ne e d not re a c h Soto-C e sa

r’ s re m a ining c onte ntions tha

t he m e rits re lie f be c a

use his othe r c o nvic tions we re a lso m isde m e anors a

n d tha t his re m ova l will c a

use e xtre m e ha

rdship to him

and his fam ily . Se e Sime onov

v . Ashc roft , 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th C ir. 2004). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t, DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 2 - 7 3 5 1 1 3