T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T NA THAN I EL RORY ST EE LE , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 74463 A ge nc yN o. A 023- 557- 240 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r19, 2011 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dM cK E O W N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. N ath an i el R o ry S t eel e, a n at i v e an dci t i zen o f S o u th A fri ca, p et i t i o n s p ro se f o rr e v ie w o f

th e B o ar do f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ” ) o r d e rd is m is s in g h is appealfr om an i m m i grat i on j ud ge’ s r em ov alorder. O ur j uri sdi ct i on i s gov erned b y8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o qu e s tio n s o f law , H am azaspyan v. 

# FI LED DE C 30 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS07- 74463 2 H older , 590 F . 3d 744, 747 ( 9th C i r . 2009) . W e de nyi n partand di s m i s s i n partthe p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . T he agency properl y f

ou ndS t ee l e i nel i gi bl e f

or cancel l at i on of re m ov al b a s e dup o n h i s 1 9 9 4 c o n v i c t i o n f o ran a g g r av a t e df

e l o n yu n d e r8 U . S. C. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( B ) . See 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 b ( a ) ( 3 ) ; R endo n v. Mukasey , 520 F . 3d 967, 9 7 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( c o n v ic tio n f o rp o s s e s s io n o f

m ar iju an af

o rs a le is c a te g o r ic a lly an “a g g r av a te df

e lo n y ” u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( B ) ) ; se e al so B ec ke r v . G on zales , 473 F . 3d 1000, 1002- 04 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( uphol di ng r e tr oa c t i ve appl i cat i on of the expand ed “ aggravat ed fe l on y” defi ni t i on un der I l l egal I m m i gr a t i on and I m m i gr antR e s pons i bi l i tyA c t , P ub. L . N o. 104- 208, § 321, 110 S t at . 30 09 (199 6)). T h e a g e n c ya ls o p r o p e r lyf o u n dth a t S te e le c o u ldn o t ap p lyf o rb o th c an c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l an daw a iv e ru n d e rf o rm e rs e c tio n 2 1 2 ( c ) . See 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 2 9 b ( c ) ( 6 ) ; B ec ke r , 473 F . 3d a t1003. W e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w S t e e l e ’ s c ont e nt i ons tha thi s c onvi c t i on f or vi ol at i ng C al . P enalC od e § 47 5 i s nota c ri m e i nv ol vi ng m oralturpi tud e und er 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( i) ( I ) , an d , a lte rn a tiv e ly , th a t it qu a lif ie s f o rth e p e tty o f f e n s e e x c e p tio n u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( i) ( I I ) , b e c au s e S te e le f a ile dto07- 74463 3 e x h au s t th e s e c o n te n tio n s b e f o r e th e a g e n c y . See T

al l v. Mukasey , 517 F . 3d 1115, 11 20 (9th C i r. 20 08 ). P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.