Case Name: Francisco Javier NAJERA-JALOMA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-08
Citations: 358 F. App'x 896
Docket Number: No. 07-72471
Parties: Francisco Javier NAJERA-JALOMA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 358
Pages: 896–897

Head Matter:
Francisco Javier NAJERA-JALOMA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-72471.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Dec. 8, 2009.
Francisco Javier Najera-Jaloma, Santa Maria, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Lauren Fascett, OIL, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Francisco Javier Najera-Jaloma, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Sandoval-Lua v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 1121, 1126-27 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition for review.
Because Najera-Jaloma's 2002 conviction for possession of a controlled substance in violation of California Health & Safety Code § 11350(a) was his second drug-related conviction, it would not have qualified for treatment under the Federal First Offenders Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3607, if he had been prosecuted in federal court. See Aguiluz-Arellano v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 980, 983-84 (9th Cir.2006). Accordingly, the agency did not err in considering it to be a conviction for the purpose of sustaining the charge of removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). Id.
In light of our disposition, we need not address Najera-Jaloma's remaining contention.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.