NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARTEMIO MERAZ

- HERNANDEZ, AKA Artemio Hernandez Meraz,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 19

- 72996 Agency No. A090

- 848

- 665

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 18, 2021 * *
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Artemio Meraz

- Hernandez , a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to terminate and his application for cancellation of removal

. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 72996

§ 1252. W e review de novo questions of law, including w hether a n offense is a crime involving moral turpitude

. Orellana v. Barr , 967 F.3d 927, 932 (9th Cir. 2020)

. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a motion to
terminate. Dominguez v. Barr , 975 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2020)

. We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v.
Holder , 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for rev iew. The agency did not err in finding Meraz

- Hernandez removable as an “ alien who at any time after admission is convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude, not arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct , ” see 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (a)(2)(A)(ii) , where Meraz

- Hernandez’s convictions under Cal ifornia
Penal Code (“CPC”) section 646.9(a) and ( c) (2) are categorically crimes involving moral turpitude , s ee Orellana , 967 F.3d at 93 8 (concluding a conviction under
CPC § 646.9(a) is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude); i d . at 933 n.5 ( “[ CPC § 646. 9 ] contains other provisions that enhance the penalty for a violation of § 646.9(a) depending on the presence of other factors. Cal. Pen. Code § 646.9(b)

– (c). A § 646.9(a) violation is a predicate for these enhancements. ” )

. Thus, the agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Meraz

- Hernandez ’s
motion to terminate.3 19

- 72996

We lack jurisdiction to consider Meraz

- Hernandez’s contentions as to the merits of the agency’s discretionary denial of his application for cancellation of
removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) ; Vilchez v. Holder , 682 F.3d 1195, 1198 (9 th Cir. 2012) (c ourt lacks jurisdiction to review “the merits of a discretionary decision to deny cancellation of removal” but retains jurisdiction to review legal and constitutional questions). Meraz

- Hernandez’s contentions that the agency
erred in its analy sis of his c ancellation of removal claim , misstated facts, or
otherwise denied hi m due process fail. See Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim) ; see also Torres

Valdivias v. Lynch , 786 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th Cir. 2015) ( “In the context of the
BIA ’ s discretionary decisions, we have noted that ‘ it is proper [for the BIA] to look to probative evidence outside the record of conviction in inquiring as to the
cir cumstances surrounding the commission of [a] crim e in order to determine
whether a favorable exercise of discretion is warranted. ’ ” ( internal citation omitted))

. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.  The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.