N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT NOEL AM B AB AG SAR M IENTO, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-70181 Age n c y No. A042-421-285 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

M ay 14, 2015 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , OW ENS, C irc uit Judge , an d C OLLINS, * ** C hie f Distric t Judge . 

# FIL E D MAY18 2015 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honora

ble R ane r C . C ollins, C hie f Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de signa tion.Noe l Sa rm ie nto, a

nat ive and c itiz e n of the Philippine s, pe titions for re vie w of a de c i sion of theB oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) de ny ing his time ly m otion to re o pe n . W e dism i ss the pe tition for la c k of jurisdic t ion. This C ourt la c ks jurisdic tion to re vie w fina l orde rs of re m o va l of a lie ns c onvic te d of a

n a ggravate d fe lony . 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(2)(C ). Howe ve r, we re ta in jurisdic tion to de te rm ine whe t h e r pe titione r is inde e d re m ova b le on tha t ground. Zav ale ta-Galle

gos v . IN S , 261 F.3d 951, 954 (9th C i r. 2001). The re fore , “ the jurisdic tiona l que stion a

nd the m e rits c olla

pse into one .” S

are ang Yev . IN

S , 214 F.3d 1128, 1131 (9th C ir. 2000). Sarm ie nto’ s c onvic tion for C a lifornia Pe na l C o de § 273.5(a ) qua lifie s a s a c rim e of viole nc e a ggravat e d fe lony a s de fine d by 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a )(43)(F). To re nde r a n a lie n re m ova

ble on the se grounds unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1227(a )(2)(A)(iii), a n offe nse m ust m e e t two c rite ria : (1) it m

ust be a c rim e of viole nc e a s de fine d in 18 U.S.C . § 16 tha

t is not a pure ly politic a l offe nse ; a

nd (2) the te rm

of im prisonm e nt m ust be at le a st one y e ar. Id. § 1101(a )(43)(F). W e have he ld tha

t § 273.5(a) is c at e goric a l ly a c rim e of viole nc e unde r 18 U.S.C . § 16(a ). Banue los-Ay o n v . Holde r , 611 F.3d 1080, 1083 (9th C ir. 2010). Furthe rm ore , a s the Im

m igration Judgepointe d out, thec ha rging doc um e nts indic ate tha

t Sa rm i e nto wie lde d a

knife and “ i nflic te d gre at bodily injury upon” -2-anothe r through thedire c t a pplic ation of forc e . Sarm ie nto wa s se n te nc e d to 365 da y s’ im prisonm e nt, whic h fulfills the se c ond c rite ria for a c rim e of viole nc e a ggrav at e d fe lony . Se eHabibi v . Holde r , 673 F.3d 1082, 1085–86 (9th C ir. 2011) (holding tha

t a se nte nc e of 365 da

y s is e quiva le nt to a

se nte nc e of a

y e a r for purpose s of 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a )(43)(F)). The e xpunge m e nt of Sa

rm ie nto’ s c onvic t ion in C a lifornia sta te c ourt pursua nt to C a l. Pe n. C ode § 1203.4 doe s not a lte r this c onc lusion. “ [A] s a ge ne ra l rule , a n e xpunge d c onvic tion qua lifie s a s a c o nvic tion unde r the INA.” D e J e sus Me le nde z v . Gonzale

z , 503 F.3d 1019, 1024 (9th C ir. 2007) (a lte ra t ions in origina l) (quotingRamire

z-C astro v . IN

S , 287 F.3d 1172, 1174 (9th C i r. 2002)). In Ramire z-C a stro , we a

pplie d tha t rule to a c onvic tion e xpunge d pursua nt to C a l. Pe n. C ode § 1203.4, the

sa m e re ha bilita tive sta tute unde r whic h Sarm ie nto’ s c onvic tion wa s e xpunge d. 287 F.3d a t 1174–75. His c onvic tion re m a ins va lid for re m ova l purpose s unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1227(a )(2)(A)(iii). The re duc tion of Sa

rm ie n to’ s offe nse to a m isde m e anor pursua nt to C a l. Pe n. C ode § 17(b) a lso doe s nothing to cha nge this a na ly sis. C a l. Pe n. C ode § 273.5(a ) is a

“ wobble r,” m e aning tha

t a c onvic tion unde r it m a

y be e ithe r a m isde m e anor or a

fe lony unde r C a lifornia sta

te la w. Se e C e ron v . Holde r , 747 F.3d 773, 777 (9th C ir. 2014) (e n ba nc ); B anue los-Ay on , 611 F.3d a t 1083 n.1. -3-Howe ve r, c la ssific ation a s a n a ggravate d fe lony

for im m igration purpose s is m a de without re ga

rd for the nom e nc lature a dopte d unde r state la w. Unite d State

s v . Gonzale z-Tamariz , 310 F.3d 1168, 1170 (9th C ir. 2002). “ The re le va nt que stion is whe the r the c rim e m e e ts the de finition of a n ‘ a ggrav at e d fe lony ’ unde r fe de ra l se nte nc ing la

w.” Id. (inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). As e xpla i ne d a bove , Sarm ie nto’ s c onvic tion unde r C a l. Pe n. C ode § 273.5(a ) so qua lifie s. W e have a lso pre v iously

re je c te d Sarm ie nto’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t a n e xpunge m e nt unde r C a l. Pe n. C ode § 17(b) re troa c tive ly re duc e s the m a xim

um punishm e nt a

va ila ble unde r state la w to six months’ im

prisonm e nt. Se e C

e ron , 747 F.3d a

t 778. Sarm ie nto doe s not ra ise a c olora ble c onstitutiona

l c la im or que stion of la

w, whic h is the sole e xc e ption to the lim ita tion on this C ourt’ s jurisdic tion im pose d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a)(2)(C ). Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(2)(D). The re fore , a s a n a lie n c onvic te d of a

n a ggravate d fe lony , his pe t ition for re vie w m ust be dism isse d for la c k of jurisdic tion.

PE T IT IO N DISM ISSE D.

-4-