N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JOSE ALB ER TO PR IETOHER NANDEZ, Pe titione r,
v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 13-70874 Age n c y No. A028-956-109
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 Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 9, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, SILVER

M AN, a nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s. Pe titione r Jose Albe rto Prie to-He rnan de z (“ Prie to” ) se e ks re vie wof the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (the “ B IA’ s” ) dism issa l of Prie to’ s a ppe a l of the im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ’ s” ) re m ova l orde r, whic h de nie d a n d/or pre te rm itte d Prie to’ s a pplic ations for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l 

# FIL ED JUN 29 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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.unde r the Im m igration a

nd Na tiona lity Ac t (“ INA” ) and spe c ia l rule c anc e lla tion of
re m ova l unde r the Nic ara gua n Adjustm e n t a

nd C e ntra l Am e ric an R e lie f Ac t (“NAC AR

A” ). For the re a sons se t forth he re in, we de ny in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt Prie to’ s pe tition for re vie w. 1. The IJ c onc l ude d

tha t Prie to ha d no re a s ona

ble e xpe c t a tion of future pe rse c ution, whic h is a

pre dic a te to e ligibility

for both a sy lum

and withholding of
re m ova l. Prie t o fa ile d to c ha lle nge suc h finding be fore e ithe r the B IA or this C ourt, a n d ha s thus wa i v e d a

ny argum e nt to thec ontra

ry . Se e , e .g. , Ze haty e v . Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th C ir. 2006). This wa ive r strips us of jurisdic tion to c onside r whe the r the IJ’ s de te rm ination wa s supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e , Sola v . Holde r , 720 F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th C ir. 2013) (pe r
c uriam ); 8 U.S.C . § 1252(d), a nd re nde rs us una

ble to gra n t a ny e ffe c tive re lie f with re spe c t to Prie to’ s c la im s for a sy lum and withholding of re

m ova l. 2. Fina lly , Prie to is ine ligiblefor c an c e l lation of re m ova l unde r the INA a nd for NAC AR

A spe c i a l rule c an c e lla

tion be c a use Prie to’ s 1997 c onvic t ion for re c e ipt of stole n prope rty

unde r C a lifornia

Pe na l C ode § 496(a ) is a

“ the ft offe nse ” within the m e aning of 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a )(43)(G), an d Prie to re c e ive d a se nte nc e of 365 da y s. Id. (de fining the

te rm “ a ggravate d

fe l ony ” a s inc luding the ft offe nse s tha t
c arry a prison te rm

of “ a t le a s t one y e ar” ); Ve rdugo-Gonzale z v . Holde r , 581 F.3d -2-1059, 1061–62 (9th C ir. 2009); se e also 8 U.S.C . §§ 1229b(b)(1)(C ),

1227(a )(2)(A)(iii) (toge the r, providing tha t a n a ggravate d fe lony

ba rs c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l); 8 C .F.R . § 1240.66(c ) (sa m e for “ s pe c ia l rule ” c anc e lla tion unde r NAC A R A). Ne ithe r C a lifornia

Pe n a l C ode § 18.5 nor the C a lifornia

Supe rior C ourt’ s
re c h ara c te riz a tion of Prie to’ s offe nse a s a “ m isde m e anor” he lps Prie to. W e have
re pe a te dly

he ld tha t a sta te c ourt’ s c ha

ra c te riz a tion of a c onvic t ion ha s no e ffe c t on fe de ra l im

m igration la

w . S e e , e .g. , Habibi v . Holde r , 673 F.3d 1082, 1088 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ [W ] he the r a

sta te c la ssifie s a

n offe nse a s a ‘ m isde m e anor’ is irre le va nt to de te rm ining whe the r it is a n ‘ a ggravate d fe lony ’ for purpose s of fe d e ra l la w.” );
se e a lso Ramire

z -C astro v . I.N

. S. , 287 F.3d 1172, 1174 (9th C ir. 2002) (“ For im m igration purpose s, a

pe rson c ontinue s to sta

nd c o nvic te d of a

n offe nse notwithsta

nding a late r e xpunge m e nt unde r a state ’s re ha bilita t ive la w.” (e m pha sis
a dde d)). Se c t i on 18.5 doe s not c ha nge the fa c t tha

t Prie to’ s ac tual

se nte nc e wa s 365 da y s. Se e Albe rto-Gonzale

z v . I.N .S. , 215 F.3d 906, 910 (9th C ir. 2000) (The phra se , “ one y e ar or m ore ” in se c tion 1101(a )(43)(G) “ re fe r[s] to the a c tua l
se nte nc e im

pose d by the tria l judge .” ). Prie to’ s re lia

n c e on Tapia v . Supe rior C ourt , 807 P.2d 434 (C a l. 1991) is
m ispla c e d for the sam e re a son: C alifornia’s d e t e rm ination tha t a sta tute a pplie s -3-re troa c tive ly to m odify

the nature of a

sta te -c o urt c o nvic tion ha s no e ffe c t on the
c la ssific a tion of tha

t offe nse for purpose s of fe de ra l im m igration la

w. Se e , e .g. , Ramire z-C a stro , 287 F.3d a

t 1174. And e ve n we re Tapia re l e va nt, it would not
a pply he re . Tapia m e re ly

he ld tha t, whe n a c ha nge in la w tha t c le arly be ne fits the de fe nda n t oc c urs be tw e e n the

c ommission of an offe

n seand the

trial for that offe nse , the ne wla

w “ m ay be a pplie d to pe nding c a se s.” Tapia , 807 P.2d a t 446. Prie to’ s the ft c a s e is not “ pe nding.” Prie to ple d guilty to a the ft offe nse in 1997. The c ha nge in la w oc c urre d ne arly

two de c a de s la

te r. It is not a

t a ll c le ar unde r Tapia tha t e ve n C a l ifornia

would a pply § 18.5 re troa c t ive l y in the se c irc um sta nc e s. 3. Prie to is ine ligiblefor a ll re lie f sought for there a sons se t forth a bove ; thus,
we ne e d not c onside r whe the r the pe rse c utor ba r a lso pre c lude s the sa

m e re lie f. W e a c c ordingly DENY IN PAR T and DISM ISS IN PAR T Prie to’ s pe tition for re vie w.

-4-