N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JOSE VALDIVIA-R ODR IGUEZ,

Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-72168 Age n c y No. A201-147-919
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 17, 2017 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : KLEINFELD a

nd WARDLAW , C irc uit Judge s , a nd PETER SON, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# F IL ED SEP 08 2017 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 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 osa nna M a louf Pe te rson, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington, sitting by de signa tion.Jose Va ldivia -R odrigue z pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a ls’ s (“ B IA” ) orde r ruling tha t he wa s ine ligiblefor c anc e lla tion of re m ova l be c a use he wa s c onvic te d of a c rim e of dom e stic viole n c e . W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1252(a ) and de ny the pe tition.

Va ldivia -R o drigue z ’ s a ssa ult c onvic tion wa s for a

c rim e of viole nc e a s de fine d by

18 U.S.C . § 16(a ) unde r the m odifie d c ate goric a l a pproa c h. He ple a de d guilty to subse c tion (A)(1) of theAriz ona a ssa ult sta t ute , whic h re q

uire s “ c a using
any phy sic a l injury to a

nothe r pe rson.” Ariz . R e v. Stat. § 13-1203(A)(1). The Ariz ona C rim ina l C ode de fine s “ [p] hy sic a l injury ” to m e an “ the im pa irm e nt of phy sic a l c ondition.”Id. § 13-105(33). His a rgum e nt tha

t the a ssa ult sta tute doe s not re quire phy sic a l forc e is the re fore without m e rit. He re lie s on the hy p othe tic a l from In re Je re m ia

h T., 126 P.3d 177, 180 (Ariz . C t. App. 2006), use d to e xpla in the h olding tha

t (A)(3) is not a

le sse r-inc lude d offe nse within (A)(1), but doe s not de m onstra

te “ a re a listic proba

bility ” tha t the sta t ute is a pplie d in the m anne r of the hy pothe t ic a l (c ha

rging som e o ne who withhe l d m e dic ation unde r (A)(1)), se e Gonz a le s v. Due na s -Alva re z , 549 U.S. 183, 193 (2007). The m e n s re a re quire m e nt
wa s sa tisfie d, be c a

use Va ldivia -R odrigue zple a de d guilty to c la ss 1 m isde m e anor

2a ssa

ult, whic h re quire s a c ting inte ntiona lly or knowingly
. Se e Le oc a l v. Ashc roft, 543 U.S. 1, 9 (2004).

The dom e s tic re l a tionship re quire m e nt wa s a lso m e t he re . In Ariz ona , the Stat e m ay c ha rge the de fe nda

nt with dome stic viole nc e by inc luding the le tte rs

“ DV” in the c ha

rging doc um e nt a

nd ne e d not c ha

rge the de fe nda

nt spe c ific a lly unde r se c tion 13-3601, which is Ariz o na ’ s dom e stic viole nc e sta tute . Ariz
. R e v. Stat . § 13-3601(H). Thesigne d ple a sta te s tha t Va ldivia -R odrigue z wa s c ha rge d with a nd ple a de d g u ilty

to “ Assa ult a nd Disorde rly

C onduc t DV.” And the dom e stic re lationships enum e ra te d in se c tion 13-3601(A) a re c oe xte n sive with those liste d in 8 U.S.C . § 1227(a )(2)(E)(i). Fe rnande z -R uizv. Gonz a le s, 466 F.3d 1121, 1125 n.5 (9th C ir. 2006) (e n ba nc ).

PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

3