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).

T he H onor abl e R i c har d D . C udahy , S e ni orC i r c ui tJudge f orthe ** * S e ve nth C i r c ui t , s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on. 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 J U A N RA M I REZ CA M PO S, 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. 06- 71355 A ge nc yN o. A 027- 570- 264 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 S e pt e m be r13, 2011 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B e f o r e : C UD AH Y , W A R D L A W , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. *** Juan R a m i r e z C a m pos ( “ R a m i r e z ” ) , ac i t i z e n and na t i ona l of M e xi c o, p e titio n s 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 ” ) d is m is s a l o f h is 

# FI LED SEP 15 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

appe a l f r om the I m m i gr a t i on Judge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) or de rof r e m ova l . W e r e vi e w the B I A ’s le g a l d e te rm in a tio n s d e n o v o . A g u ilu z -A r e lla n o v . G o n z a les , 446 F . 3d 980, 9 8 3 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). W h en th e B IA ad o p ts th e I J’s d ec isio n , w e r ev iew th e I J’s d e c is io n a s if

it w e r e th e B I A ’s . Mo l i n a - Es tra da v . I NS , 2 9 3 F .3 d1 0 8 9 , 1 0 9 3 ( 9 th C i r . 2002) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on pur s uantt o 8 U . S . C . § 1252, and w e de nythe p e titio n . T he B I A c orr e c t l yde t e rm i ne d tha te xpunge m e ntof R a m i r e z ’ s c onvi c t i on f or pos s e s s i on of

m ar i j uanaf ors a l e , C a l . H e a l th & S a f e tyC ode § 11359, di d not e lim in a te th e c o n v ic tio n f o rim m ig r a tio n p u rp o s e s . See Ra m i r ez - Ca s tr o v . I NS , 287 F . 3d 1172, 1174 ( 9th C i r . 2002) ( s t a t e e xpunge m e ntof ac r i m i na l c onvi c t i on g e n e r a llyd o e s n o t r e m o v e its c o n s e q u e n c e s in im m ig r a tio n p r o c e e d in g s ) . R a m i r e z ’ s c onvi c t i on unde r§ 11359 f orpos s e s s i on f

ors a l e i s notc ove r e d bythe F e de r a l F i r s tO f

f e nde rA c t( “ F F O A ” ) , 18 U . S . C . § 3607, w hi c h f ori m m i gr a t i on p u rp o s e s e lim in a te s o n lyc o n v ic tio n s f o rs im p le p o s s e s s io n . Cardena s- U ri arte v . I NS , 22 7 F . 3d 11 32 , 11 36 (9th C i r. 20 00 ) ( “ T he F eder alF i rs tO ff ender A ct re qu i re s apl eaor conv i ct i on of po ss es si on of a c on trol l ed subst ance , as desc ribed in 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 4 .” ) , overruled i n p art on other groun ds by N

un ez -R ey es v . H older , 64 6 F . 3d 68 4 (9th C i r. 20 11 ) ( en banc). T hus , R a m i r e z ’ s § 11359 conv i ct i on re nd er s hi m i nadm i ss i bl e on the basi s of acontrol l ed subst ance3

vi ol a t i on, 8 U . S . C . § 1182( a ) ( 2) ( A ) ( i ) ( I I ) , and i ne l i gi bl e f orw a i ve rof in a d m is s ib ilityu n d e r§ 1 1 8 2 ( h ) . R a m i r e z ’ s c l a i m tha the w a s de ni e d due pr oc e s s be c aus e the B I A di d not a ddr e s s hi s § 1182( h) w a i ve rc l a i m l a c ks m e r i t . T he B I A e xpr e s s l ya dopt e d the I J ’s d e c is io n , w h ic h d is c u s s e dth e w a iv e rc la im . M o r e o v e r , b e c au s e R a m ir e z is i ne l i gi bl e f

orw a i ve runde r§ 1182( h) , he c annotm a ke the ne c e s s arys how i ng of p r e ju d ic e . Se e R a m ir ez - P e r ezv . A s h c r o ft , 33 6 F . 3d 10 01 , 10 06 & n. 16 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) ( an a lie n “m u s t s h o w p r e ju d ic e to s u c c e e din adu e p r o c e s s c h a lle n g e ” ) . DE NI E D.