N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT HEC TOR R UVALC AB A-C ASTOR E NA, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-74002 Age n c y No. A044-547-634 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 12, 2016 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FAR

R IS, C LIFTON, a

nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s. He c tor R uva lc a ba -C a store na

pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m i gra tion Appe a l s (B IA)’ s orde r a ffirm ing the de nia l of his a pplic a tion for c anc e lla tion of re m ova l . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a nd we de ny the p e tition. 

# FIL ED FEB 29 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).The B IA did not e rr in holding tha t R uva lc a ba -C a store na

ha d not m e t his burde n of de m onstra

ting tha t his sta te la w c onvic tion a s a

fe l on in posse ssion of a m m unition did not qua

l ify a s a n a ggrav a te d fe lony

a s de fine d in the Im

m igration and Na tiona lity A c t (INA), 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a )(43). C ourts e m ploy a “ c ate goric a l a pproa c h ” to de t e rm ine whe the r a sta te la w viola tion c onstitute s a

n a ggravate d fe lony unde r the INA. Alanis-Alvarado v . Holde r , 558 F.3d 833, 836 (9th C ir. 2009) (c iting Tay lor v .Unite d State s , 495 U.S. 575 (1990)). “ [I] f the ‘ full ra nge of c onduc t’ c o ve re d by

the sta te sta tute fa l ls within the sc ope of the INA provision, the n the pe titione r’ s c onvic tion is c a te goric a lly a re m ova ble offe nse .” Id. R uva lc a b a -C a store na

wa s c onvic te d of be ing a fe lon in posse ssion of a m m unition unde r C a lifornia

Pe na l C ode § 12316(b)(1), 1 whic h provide d tha

t no one c onvic te d of the ft or gra n d the ft unde r c e rta i n C a lifornia sta tute s “ sha l l own, posse s s, or ha

v e unde r his or he r c ustody or c ontrol, a

ny am m unition or re loa de d a m m unition.” Se c t i on 1101(a )(43) of the INA de fine s a n a ggravate d fe lony

to inc l ude “ an offe n s e de sc ribe d in . . . se c t ion 922(g)(1) . . . of Title 18 (re lating to fire arm s offe n s e s).” 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a )(43)(E)(ii). Se c tion 922(g)(1), in turn, m a ke s it a

c rim e for a

fe lon to re c e ive “ a

ny fire arm or am m unition whic h ha s be e n

1 Se c tion 12316(b) wa s re pe a le d in 2010. A sim ila r provision now a

p pe ars a t C a lifornia Pe na l C ode § 30305. 2shippe d or tra nsporte d in inte rstate or fore ign c o m m e rc e .” 18 U.S.C . § 922(g)(1). R uva lc a ba -C a store na

argue s tha

t the “ re lating to fire arm s offe nse s” la ngua ge in the INA lim its the de finition of a n a ggravat e d fe lony

to e xc l ude those c onvic tions tha t involve d only

am m unition. Howe ve r, we have he ld re pe a t e dly tha t the INA’ s

“ re lat ing to” la

ngua ge “ m e re ly

de sc ribe s a

n d doe s not lim

it . . . offe nse s tha

t m ay be a pre d ic a te for the a ggravate d fe lony .” C astro-Espinosa v

. Ashc roft , 257 F.3d 1130, 1132 (9th C ir. 2001) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d); se e also RodriguezVale nc ia v . Holde r , 652 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th C ir. 2011). R uva lc a ba -C a store na ’ s c onvic tion for be ing a

fe lon in posse ssion of a

m m unition fa lls squa

re ly within the de finition of a

n a ggravat e d fe lony

in the INA. R uva lc a b a -C a store na

a lso a rgue s tha t the Im m igration Judge(IJ) e rre d in fa iling to provide

a le ga l c ita

t ion for his holding tha

t the re is no substa

n tia l diffe re nc e be twe e n C a lifornia Pe na l C ode § 12316(b)(1) a nd 18 U.S.C . § 922(g)(1) e ve n though the fe de ra l sta tute re quire s tha

t a m m unition beshippe d or tra

nsporte d in inte rsta te or fore i gn c om

m e rc e and the sta

te sta t ute doe s not. The re wa s no e rror, be c a use the IJ a c c ura t e ly

de sc ribe d a

nd a pplie d the la w. “ [T] he c om

m e rc e ne xus re quire m e nt of § 922(g) is me re ly a jurisdic tiona l ba sis” and, a s a re sult, doe s not pre s e nt a n im pe dim e nt to finding tha

t a sta te c ourt c onvic tion c onstitute s a n

3a ggrav a t e d fe lony unde r the INA. Unite d State s v . C astillo-Rive ra , 244 F.3d 1020, 1023 (9th C ir. 2001) (inte rna l c ita tions omitte d). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE W DE NIE D.

4