N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT W ILLIAM ALB E R TO M ORALESC OR NEJO, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 14-71158 Age n c y No. A044-022-378 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 Fe brua

ry 24, 2016 * * B e fore : LEAVY, FER NANDEZ, a

nd R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s. W illia m Albe rto M ora le s-C orne

jo, a native and c itiz e n of El Sa lva dor, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a

ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision finding him re m ova b le and pre te rm itting his a

pplic ation for c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l. Our jurisdic tion is



# FIL ED MAR 02 2016 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).gove rne d

by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re v ie w de novo que s tions of la w. C oronado v . Holde r , 759 F.3d 977, 982 (9th C ir. 2014). W e de ny in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w. The a ge n c y

c o rre c tly de te rm ine d tha

t M ora le s-C orne

jo’ s c onvic t ion unde r C a l. He a lth & Sa fe ty C ode § 11377(a), for posse ssion of m e tha m phe tam ine , c onstitute s a

c ontrolle d substa

n c e viola tion whic h re nde rs him re m ova b le unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1227(a)(2)(B )(i). S e e C oronado , 759 F.3d a

t 984-86 (holding tha

t C a l. He a lth & Sa fe ty C ode § 11377(a) is divisible and subje c t to them odifie d c ate goric a l a

pproa c h ). Ac c o rdingly , the a g e nc y c orre c tly c onc l ude d tha

t this c onvic tion interrupte d his a c c rua l of the c ontinuous phy sic a l pre se nc e re quire d for c anc e lla tion of re m ova l . Se e8 U.S.C . § 1229b(d)(1)(B ) (c ontinuous phy s ic a l pre s e nc e pe riod e n ds whe n a lie n c om m its e num e rat e d offe nse ). M ora le s-C orne jo’ s argum e nt c ha lle nging C

oronado ’ s tre atm e nt of C a l. He a lth & Sa fe ty C ode § 11377(a) is fore c lose d

by our de c ision in U

nite d State

s v . Torre -J

ime n e z , 771 F.3d 1163, 1165-67 (9th C ir. 2014). M ora le s-C orne

jo’ s c onte ntion tha

t he is e ligiblefor Fe de ra l First Offe nde r Ac t (“ FFOA” ) tre atm e nt unde r Lujan-Arme ndariz v . IN S , 222 F.3d 728 (9th C ir. 2000), ov e rrule d prospe c tiv e l y by N une z-Re y e s v . Holde r , 646 F.3d 684 (9th C ir. 2011) (e n ba

nc ), is without me rit be c a use the re is no indic ation tha t his c onvic tion

1 4 - 7 1 1 5 8 2ha s be e n e xpunge d. Se eC hav e z-Pe re z v . Ashc roft , 386 F.3d 1284, 1291-92 (9th C ir. 2004) (theFFOA e xc e ption doe s not a p ply to c onvic te d a lie ns who a re e ligible for, but ha

ve not y e t re c e ive d, e xpunge m e nt of the c onvic t ion). W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w M ora l e s-C orne j o’ s une xha

uste d c onte ntion that the re c ord of c onvic tion doe s not show he wa s ne c e ssa

rily c onvic te d of posse s sion of m e t

ham phe tam ine . Se eTijani v . Holde r , 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w le ga l c la im s not pre s e nte d in a n a lie n’ s a dm inistra

tive proc e e dings be fore the B IA.” ). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 4 - 7 1 1 5 8 3