Case Name: Israel SANCHEZ-CRUZ, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-29
Citations: 280 F. App'x 659
Docket Number: No. 04-73573
Parties: Israel SANCHEZ-CRUZ, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 280
Pages: 659–659

Head Matter:
Israel SANCHEZ-CRUZ, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-73573.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted May 16, 2008.
Filed May 29, 2008.
Robert B. Jobe, Law Offices of Robert B. Jobe, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Andrew C. Maclachlan, for Respondent.
Before: B. FLETCHER and RYMER, Circuit Judges, and DUFFY , Senior District Judge.
The Honorable Kevin Thomas Duffy, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Israel Sanchez-Cruz, who conceded removability from the United States, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge's finding that he is ineligible for cancellation of removal because he committed a crime involving moral turpitude. We deny the petition.
Sanchez-Cruz is ineligible for cancellation of removal because he admitted committing a crime involving fraud, thus an offense involving moral turpitude. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2); Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223, 227, 71 S.Ct. 703, 95 L.Ed. 886 (1951). In a signed plea agreement, Sanchez-Cruz admitted he was guilty of the charge of knowingly making a materially false statement in order to obtain a social security card, a tangible benefit. See Blanco v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 714, 719-20 (9th Cir.2008); see also Navarro-Lopez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1063, 1076 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc) (Reinhardt, J., concurring).
PETITION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.