Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 61126 Su m m ar y Cal endar V IC T O R JAV IE R J IM E N E Z -L O P E Z , P et i t i on er v. E R IC H . H O L D E R , J R ., U .S . A T T O R N E YG E N E R A L , R esp on d en t

Pet i t i o n f

o rRev i e w o f

a n Ord e ro f

t he B oard of

I m m i grati on A pp eal s A 37 441 904 B ef ore B E N AV ID E S , P R A D O , A N D SO U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * P et i t i on er V i ct or Javi er J i m en ez- L opez, a na t ive an d ci t i zen of M exi co, s e e ks r e vi e w of

t he B o ar d of

I m m i gr at i o n A ppe al s ’( BI A) or de rt hataf f i r m e d the deci si on by the I m m i grati on Ju dg e (IJ) . Th e I J f o u n d Jim en ez’ s c on vi ct i on recor ds as cl ear an d c on vi n ci n g evi den ce t h at Ji m en ez w as subjec tt o rem oval f or c o n v ic tio n o f a c r im e re la tin gto aco n tr o lle ds u b s ta n c e a n dd e n ie dh is a p p l i ca ti on f

or ca n cell a ti on of rem ov a lu n d er th e Im m i gr a ti on a n dN a ti on a l i ty United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

14, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 61126

2 A c t (IN A) a s i n eli gible be ca u se o f h i s con victi on s. F or th e rea son s set f orth bel ow , w e di sm i ss h i s pet i t i on i n part f or l ack of

j u ri sdi ct i on an d d en y i n part bec ause t he B IAc or r ec t l y de c i ded t hatJi m enez ’ s c onvi c t i ons c ons t i t ut e a n a g g r a v a te dfe lo n yre n d e r in gh im in e lig ib le fo rca n c e lla tio n o f r e m o v a l. T h is C o u r t h a s s ta tu to r yju r is d ic tio n to re v ie w fin a l o r d e r s o f r e m o v a l. I NA § 2 4 2 , 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 2 . Ho w e ve r , t hi s j u r i s d i c t i o n i s r e s t r i c t e db yI NA § 24 2( a) ( 2) ( C) , w hi c h s t at e s t hatc o ur t s dono tha vej ur i s di c t i o n “t o revi e w a ny f i n alorder of

rem oval aga i n stan al i en ” w h o i s r em ovedf or c ri m es r el ati n g t o a co n tro ll e dsu b sta n ce u n d e r S e ctio n 2 3 7 (a)(2)(B )(i). 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 2 )(C ). A dd i t i on al l y, w e are generally f o rbi dde n f

rom revi ew i n g rem oval orders f or c ases in w h i c h t h e a lie n h a s b e e n co n v ic te do f a n a g g r a v a te dfe lo n y . Ca ra ch u riR osend o v. Hol d er , 5 7 0 F .3 d 2 6 3 , 2 6 5 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) (cita tion s o m itted ). N ot w i t hst andi ng, w e r et ai n j uri sdi c t i on t o r evi ew fac t s and i ssues i nvolvi ng a q u e s tio n o f la w . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(D ). B e c a u s e J im e n e z ’ p e t i t i o n fa lls w ith in th is e x c e p tio n , w e re v ie w t h e B IA ’ s r u lin g s o f la w d e n o v o . Se eCar ac hur i
- R o s e ndo , 570 F. 3d at265. Ji m en ez contend s th a t n e ith e r d ru gco n v iction is co n sid e re da f el on y u n der t he C ont r oll ed Subst ance s A c t( C SA) , and t hus, notan aggr avat ed f el ony t hat w ou l dren d er h i m i n eli gib le for ca n cell a ti on of rem ov a l . Jim en ez ask s u s to reverse t h e B IA ’ s f

i n di n gs t h at Ji m en ez ha s been con vi ct ed of a rec i divi stof

fen se an d that t h e I J fai led t o l i n k Jim en ez’hom osexu al i t y an d H IV/A ID S di sease p r o p e r l yt o g e t h e r . T h e BIA f o u n dJ i m e ne z r e m o v a b l e u n d e rI NA § 237( a) ( 2) ( B ) (i) , 8 U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( 2 )( B )(i) becaus e he i s an al i en w ho w as c o n v ic te do f acr im e re la tin gto aco n tr o lle ds u b s ta n c e . Ji m e ne z ’ s t w o dr ug c o nvi c t i o ns c o ns t i t ut e a n a gg r av at e df e l o ny. I n Un i t ed St at e s v . Sanc hez - Vil lalobos , 412 F . 3d572 , 576 ( 5th C i r. 200 5) , t h i s C ou rt c o nc l ude d t hatt w o s t at e c o nvi c t i o ns f o r po s s e s s i o n c o ul d be puni s he d as afe l o nyN o. 08- 61126

TheSupreme Court in Lopez v. Gonzalez , 5 4 9 U . S . 4 7 (2 0 0 6) , ab ro gat e d o ne of th e 1 Sanchez-Villalob os’ hol din gs b ut left intact this determination . See Carachuri-Rosendo , 57 0 F.3 d at26 6-67 . 3 unde rt he CSA ’ s r e c i divi s m pr o vi s i o ns . La t e r , t hi s Cour ti n Uni t e d S t at e s v. 1 Cepeda
- R i os , 5 3 0 F .3 d3 3 3 , 3 3 4 -3 5 (5 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) , st a te dits a p p r o a c h to th is i s s ue i n S an chez- V

i l lalobos w as stil lvi able af t er L opez and agai n dec i ded t hat a s ec ond s t at e po ss es si on o f fens e puni shabl e a s a f el ony under fed era ll aw q u a lifie da s a n a g g r a v a te dfe lo n yu n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 3 )(B ). Ca ra ch u riR o s e ndo , 570 F . 3da t2 66-67. R ecently, this C ou rtaf f i rm ed an en-ban c deci si on b y t h e BIA i n Cara c hur i
- R o s e ndo , t hatde t e r m i ne d thate ve n t ho ught he pet i t i onerhad bee n c onvi c t ed t w i c e of m i sde m eanorposs es si on char ges butw as n otch argeda s a r eci divi st , t h e convi ct i on s m ett h e def i n i t i on of

an aggrav ated fe l o n yu n d e rt h e C S A . I d. a t 2 6 5 . H e r e , th e fa c ts a r e s im ila rto th o s e in Car ac hur i
- R o s e ndo b e c aus e J i m e ne z a l s o ha s t w o m i s de m e ano rs t at e dr ug c o nvi c t i o n t hatt he BI A de t e r m i ne d un de rt hi s Cour t ’ s c as e l aw to m e e tt he defi n i t i on of

an aggrav ated fel on forreci divi stp osses si on . Ji m en ez’ s D ecem ber 200 0 conv i ct i on un der C al i f orni a l aw requ i re t h e sam e el em en t s as a convic t i on u n der federalpossess i on w ou l d r e q u ir e. W h i l e Ji m en ez argues that use of c o c a in e s h o u ldn o t b e co n s id e r e dth e s a m e a s p o s s e s s io n o f c o c a i n e , t h is ar gum e nti s f

o r e c l o s e d b y o urde c i s i o n i n Un i t ed S t ate s v. Cou rt n ey , 979 F. 2d 45, 49 (5t h C i r. 199 2) , i n w h i ch w e deter m i n ed that possess ion a n d u se w ere not di s t i nc tc r i m e s w i t h s e p a r a t ee l e m e n t s . J i m e ne z ’ s 2 00 4 c o nvi c t i o n und e rFl o r i da l aw const i tu te s hi s s econdconvi ct i on t h at m ay be con si dered toget h er t o m eet th e d efi n i ti on of a n ag gr a va tedfelon y u n d er 2 1 U . S . C . § 84 4 (a ). S ee S an chezV i l lalobos , 412 F .3d a t576
- 77. T h u s, Ji m en ez’ s t w o drugconvi ct i on s r en der h im in e lig ib le fo rca n c e lla tio n o f r e m o v a l. Ji m en ez al so asks t h i s C ou rtt o r e v iew h i s c l ai m f or w i t h h ol di n g of rem oval. B u t , a s Jim en ez m erely di sagrees w i t h the B oard’ s f i n di n g of

evi den ceN o. 08- 61126

4 an d d oes not rai se a con st i t u t i on alcl ai m or qu est i on of l aw , w e lack j u ri sdi ct i on to re v ie w . T h e r e f o r e , t h e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w i s DE NI ED .