Case Name: Carlos PENAFIEL-FALCON, a.k.a. Carlos Antonio Penafiel, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-13
Citations: 348 F. App'x 282
Docket Number: No. 06-70877
Parties: Carlos PENAFIEL-FALCON, a.k.a. Carlos Antonio Penafiel, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 348
Pages: 282–284

Head Matter:
Carlos PENAFIEL-FALCON, a.k.a. Carlos Antonio Penafiel, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-70877.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
Filed Oct. 13, 2009.
Carlos Penafiel-Falcon, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
District Director, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Phillip Michael Truman, Cindy S.Ferrier, Senior Litigation Counsel, Michelle Gorden Latour, Esquire, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Carlos Penafiel-Falcon, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision finding him removable and denying cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The government's motion to strike the evidence filed with Penafiel-Falcon's opening brief, labeled Appendix "A", is granted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A).
The agency properly concluded that under the modified categorical approach set forth in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 602, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990), Penafiel-Falcon is removable and ineligible for cancellation of removal as an aggravated felon because his conviction under California Penal Code § 459/460(b) constitutes a burglary offense and he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of at least one year for his crime. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) & 1229b(a)(3); Ye v. INS, 214 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir.2000); United States v. Velasco-Medina, 305 F.3d 839 (9th Cir.2002).
The agency properly relied on the charging document and abstract of judgment to determine that Penafiel-Falcon pled guilty to a charge that meets the federal definition of burglary and was sentenced to 1 year and 4 months in prison. See United States v. Snellenberger, 548 F.3d 699, 701-702 (9th Cir.2008) (per cu-riam) (state clerk minute orders and documents of equal reliability may be relied upon to determine if a crime qualifies as a predicate offense); Ye, 214 F.3d at 1132 (defining burglary). The fact that Penaf-iel-Falcon's term of imprisonment was not imposed until after he violated probation is not legally significant. See United States v. Jimenez, 258 F.3d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir.2001).
We lack jurisdiction to review Pe-nafiel-Falcon's contention that his revocation of probation was improperly entered because he failed to exhaust this claim before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). We need not reach Penafiel-Falcon's argument regarding his 2003 grand theft conviction because the BIA did not rely on this conviction in its order.
To the extent Penafiel-Falcon seeks to have his habeas petition reviewed as part of this petition for review, we lack jurisdiction to review a habeas petition in the first instance. See Carriger v. Lewis, 971 F.2d 329, 332 (9th Cir.1992).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.