NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEOBARDO FLORES-MONTANO, AKA Leobardo Flores, AKA Leovardo Flores, AKA Scrappy Moniker, AKA Leobardo Montano, AKA Miguel Quinones, Petitioner,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 12-71417 Agency No. A200-243-299
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted February 12, 2015 Pasadena, California Before: CALLAHAN, WATFORD, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Leobardo Flores-Montano (“Flores-Montano”) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his appeal of an 

# FILED
FEB 27 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying him adjustment of status and cancellation of removal. The BIA found that the IJ properly pretermitted the application because Flores-Montano was st atutorily ineligible for relief under the Federal First Offender Act (FFOA), 18 U.S .C. § 3607, due to his 2004 conviction for possession of a controlled substance inviolation of California Health and Safety Code § 11350(a). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) to review the BIA’s determination that a controlled substan ce conviction precludes immigration relief as a matter of law. Estrada v. Holder , 560 F.3d 1039, 1041 n.1 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Ramirez-Altamirano v. Mukasey , 554 F.3d 786, 789 (9th Cir. 2009)). The BIA’s legal determinations are reviewed de novo. See Nunez-Reyes v. Holder , 646 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc); Aguiluz-Arellano v. Gonzales , 446 F.3d 980, 983 (9th Cir. 2006). Because Flores-Montano’s drug conviction was in 2004, the prospective rule inNunez-Reyes , 646 F.3d at 694, does not apply. We accordingly apply the reasoning of Lujan-Armendariz v. INS , 222 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2000), which extended FFOA relief to expunged state convi ctions. The FFOA provides that first offenders may be placed “on probation fo r a term of not more than one year without entering a judgment of conviction” and “if the person has not violated a
2condition of his probation, the court shall . . . dismiss the proceedings.” 18 U.S.C. § 3607(a). However, Flores-Montano conced ed, and the record discloses, that he violated his probation multiple times. Thus, Flores-Montano does not qualify for FFOA relief under Estrada , 560 F.3d at 1042. Generally, if the BIA has not addresse d a particular issue, “‘the proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the agency for additional investigation or explanation.’” Gonzales v. Thomas , 547 U.S. 183, 186 (2006) (per curiam) (quoting INS v. Ventura , 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002) (per curiam)). However, “remand is not required where, as here, the issue is purely legal and it involves an interpretation of the FFOA, a statute which the BIA is not charged with administering [and the] case requires no fu rther agency expertise or evaluation.” Aguiluz-Arellano , 446 F.3d at 984; see also Halim v. Holder , 590 F.3d 971,979–80 (9th Cir. 2009). The conclusion that the FFOA does not apply to FloresMontano’s conviction is purely legal, fu lly supported by the record, and requires no further agency expertise or evaluation. Therefore, Flores-Montano is removable and ineligible for adjustment of status. The petition is DENIED
.

3