N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ALFONSO TOR

RES-SANC H EZ, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 09-74115 Age n c y No. A092-228-395 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 July 11, 2014 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : N.R . SM ITH a

nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s, a nd PIER SOL, Se nior Distric t Judge . *** Alfonso Torre s-Sanc he z , a native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of a de c i sion of theB oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (B IA) a ffirm i ng a n im m i gration 

# FIL ED JUL 17 2014 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). *** The Honora

ble La wre nc e L. Pie rsol, Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of South Da kota , sitting by de signa

tion.judge ’ s (IJ) de c ision finding Torre s-Sanc h e z re m ova ble ba se d on his C a l ifornia c onvic tion for a

c rim e involving m

ora l turpitude . 1 Unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(2)(C ), “ e xc e p t a s provide d in subpa ra gra ph (D), no c ourt sha ll ha

ve jurisdic tion to re v ie w a

ny fina l orde r of re m ova l a g a inst a n a lie n who is re m ova

ble by re a son of ha

ving c om m itte d a c rim ina l offe nse c ove re d in se c tion 1182(a )(2).” The offe nse s c ove re d by

§ 1182(a )(2) inc lude c rim e s involving m o ra l turpitude . Id. § 1182(a )(2)(A)(i)(I). “ This c ourt ha s jurisdic tion to de te rm ine whe the r jurisdic tion e xists.” M

orale s v . Gonzale

s , 478 F.3d 972, 977 (9th C ir. 2007) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). W e do not ha ve jurisdic tion, the re fore we m

ust dismiss thepe tition. C a lifornia Pe na l C ode § 288(a ) c rim ina liz e s le wd or la sc i vious a c ts upon or with thebody

of a c hild who is unde

r the a g e of 14 y e ars, “ with theinte nt of arousing, a

ppe a ling to, or gra

tify ing the lust, pa ssions, or se xua l de sire s of tha t pe rson or the c hild.” Torre s-Sanc he z c onc e de d be fore the B IA, and be fore this c ourt, tha t if he ha d be e n c onvic te d of viola ting § 288(a

), the n he would besubje c t to de porta tion be c a use viola tion of § 288(a

) is a c rim e involving m

ora l turpitude unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1182(a )(2)(A)(i)(I). The re fore , the only que stion be fore us is

1 B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c t s of the c a se , we will not re c o unt the m

he re . 2whe the r the re is re a sona b le , substa

ntia l, a nd proba tive e vide nc e tha

t Torre sSanc he z wa s c onvic te d of viola ting § 288(a

). 8 U.S.C . § 1229a (c )(3)(A). The IJ gra

nte d Torre s-Sanc he z two c ontinua n c e s to a wa it the re sult of his m otion to va c ate his c onvic tion in sta te c ourt. O n August 27, 2009, Torre sSanc he z ’ s attorne y

inform e d the IJ tha

t the m otion to va c ate the sta te c onvic tion wa s de nie d. At tha

t sa m e he aring the IJ a c knowle dge d tha t the sta te c onvic tion wa s for viola

tion of § 288(a

). The re c ord c onta ins a fe lony c om pla int c ha rging Torre s-Sanc he z with viola ting § 288(a

) and se ve ra l m i nute orde rs c onc e rning tha t c ha rge . The se are a

ppropria te doc um e nts to re ly

on a s proof of a

c rim ina l c onvic tion in the se c irc um sta nc e s, a nd the se doc um e nts e s ta

blish tha t Torre sSanc he z wa s c onvic te d of viola ting § 288(a

). 8 U.S.C . § 1229a (c )(3)(B ). This c ourt ha s jurisdic t ion to re vie w“ c o n stitutiona l c l a im s or que stions of la w.” Se e id. § 1252(a )(2)(D). B ut suc h c la im s “ m ust pre s e nt a

c olora ble c la im ,” m e aning “ the c la im m

ust ha ve som e possibleva lidity .” Se e Me nde z -C astro v . Muk ase y , 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th C ir. 2009). Noneof the argum e nts ra i se d by

3Torre s-Sanc he z in his pe tition a re c olora b l e . 2 The re fore , we la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w the B IA’ s de c ision a ffirm ing the IJ’ s re m ova l orde r. Se e 8 U.S.C . §§ 1252(a )(2)(C ) & (D). The pe tition is DISM ISSE D for la c k of jurisdic tion.

2 Torre s-San c he z a l so ra ise d c la im s on a ppe a l tha t we re not ra ise d to the B IA and a

re the re fore une xha

uste d. S e e Barron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th C ir. 2004) (this c ourt la c k s jurisdic tion to re v i e w c onte ntions not raise d be fore the a ge nc y ). 4