N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOR GE C U EVAS-M O R ENO, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 10-71374 Age n c y No. A035-237-425 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 Argue d an d Subm itte d Oc t obe r 15, 2012. Subm ission Va c ate d April 16, 2013. R e subm itte d for De c ision Se pte m be r 4, 2013. San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : HAW KINS, M . SM ITH, a nd M U R GUIA, C irc uit Judge s. Jorge C u e va s-M ore no c ha lle nge s a n orde r of the B oa

rd of Im m igrat ion Appe a ls a ffirm ing the Im m igration Judge ’ s de te rm ination tha t he wa s c o nvic te d of an a g grav a te d fe lony and is the re fore ine ligiblefor c anc e lla tion of re m o va l. 

# FIL ED SEP 11 2013 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.C ue va s-M ore no wa s c onvic te d of a c rim e of dom e s tic viole nc e tha t re nde rs him re m ova ble , but be c a

use he wa s only

se n te nc e d to 31 da

y s, tha t c rim e is not a

n a ggrav a t e d fe lony , whic h would ba r his a pplic ation for c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a )(43)(F) (c rim e of viole nc e is a n a g gravate d fe lony

only if the t e rm of im p risonm e nt is a

t le a st one y e ar). In a ddition the

re c ord c onta ins a

n a bstra c t of judgm e nt indic at ing tha t C ue va s-M ore no wa s a lso c onvic te d of viola ting C a lifornia

Pe na l C o de § 487(a ), whic h c rim ina l iz e s the ta

king of “ m one y , la

bor, or re a l or pe rsona l prope rty .” Tha t sta tute is ove rbroa d, whic h

m e ans tha

t som e c onvic tions unde r the sta tute are a ggrav a t e d fe lonie s, but othe rs a re not. Ramire

z-Villalpando v. Holde r , 645 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th C ir. 2011). Thepa rtie s disputewhe the r, unde r the m odifie d c a te goric a l a

pproa c h , we m ay

c onside r the c rim ina l c om pla int tha t indic ate s C ue va s-M ore no wa s c ha

rge d with ste a l ing pe rsona l prope rty , c onduc t tha t would c onstitute an a ggravate d

fe lony c ate gory . Se e id. at 1039 (sta ting tha t § 487(a ) is ove rbroa d be c a

use the the ft of la

bor is not a

n a ggravate d fe lony ). W e ne e d not re solve this dispute , howe ve r, be c a use e ve n without c onside ring the c o m

pla int, “ the e vide nc e indic ate s tha t one or m ore of the grounds for m andatory

de nia l of the a

pplic ation for re lie f m ay

a pply ” and the re fore , to obta in c an c e lla

tion of re m ova l C ue va s-M ore no “ [ha s] the burde n of proving by a -2-pre p onde ranc e of the e vide nc e tha t suc h grounds do not a

p ply .” 8 C .F.R . § 1240.8(d); Young v . Holde r , 697 F.3d 976, 988–990 (9th C i r. 2012) (e n ba nc ). C ue va s-M ore no a

rgue s tha t the re c ord doe s not “ c onc lusive ly e sta blish” tha t he wa s c onvic te d of a

n a ggrav a te d fe lony . Eve n if tha t is true , the re c ord is a

t be st inc o nc lusive an d C ue va s-M ore no “ c annot c arry the burde n of de m onstra

ting e ligibility for c an c e lla

tion of re m ova l by

e s ta blishing a n inc onc lusive re c ord of c onvic tion.” Young , 697 F.3d a t 990. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D .

-3-