N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT PEDR O ALONSO, a .k.a . Pe dro M orfin Alonso, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 08-71874 Age n c y No. A092-187-124 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 14, 2013 ** B e fore : LEAVY, THOM AS, and M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s . Pe dro Alonso, a nat ive and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions pro se for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) re m ova l orde r. Our jurisdic t ion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re v ie w de n ovo que stions of la w . Ramire

z-Villalpando v. 

# FIL ED MAY20 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. ** 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).Holde r , 645 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th C ir. 2011). W e de ny in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt the p e tition for re v i e w. The a ge n c y

c o rre c tly de te rm ine d tha

t Alonso wa s c onvic te d of a n a ggrav at e d fe lony

drug tra ffic king c rim e a s de fine d in 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a)(43)(B ) that re n de rs him re m o va

b l e unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The re c ord of c onvic tion e sta

blishe s tha

t Alonso wa s c onvic t e d of posse ssion for sa le of a c ontrolle d substa

nc e in viola

tion of C a lifornia He a lth & Sa fe ty C o de § 11378 with a se n te nc ing e nha

n c e m e n t unde r § 11370.4(b)(1) be c a use he posse sse d m o re tha n 1 kilogra m of a substa nc e c onta ining m e tha

m p he tam ine , am

phe tam ine or phe nc y c lidine an d its a

na logs. Se e 21 C .F.R . § 1308.12(d)(2); Re ndon v . Muk ase y , 520 F.3d 967, 976 (9th C ir. 2008) (“ [P] o sse ssion of a c ontrolle d

substa nc e with the inte nt to se ll c onta ins a tra ffic king e le m e nt a nd is a n a ggrav ate d fe lony .” ); s e e also Ramire z-Villalpando , 645 F.3d a t 1040-41 (using a

n a bstra c t of judgm e nt in c om bina tion with the

c ha rging doc um e nt to e sta

blish tha t a c o nvic tion wa s for a re m ova ble offe nse ). The a ge n c y

c o rre c tly de te rm ine d tha

t Alonso’ s a ggravat e d fe lony c onvic tion re nde rs him

sta tutorily ine ligiblefor a s y lum , c anc e lla tion of re m ova l, a

nd volunta ry de pa rture , se e 8 U.S.C . §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), B (i), 1229b(a )(3), 1229c (b)(1)(C ), a

n d he ha s not e sta

blishe d e l igibility

for any othe r form

of re lie f. 0 8 - 7 1 8 7 4 2In light of our disposition, we ne e d not re a c h Alonso’ s c onte ntions re ga rding his a dditiona l c onvic tion a

nd the re m a i ning ground of re m ova bility . Alonso’ s c onte ntion tha

t the IJ viola

t e d due proc e s s by

de ny ing him

an opportunity

to pre se nt e v ide nc e is not supporte d by the re c ord whe re Alonso de c line d the opportunity

to pre s e nt a dditiona l inform ation. Se e Lata v . IN S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000) (re quiring e rror and pre judic e to pre va il on a

due proc e s s c la im ). Alonso’ s c ha lle nge to his bond proc e e dings a re not prope rly

be fore this c ourt. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1226(e ); 8 C .F.R . § 1003.19(d). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

0 8 - 7 1 8 7 4 3