Case Name: Carlos GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-23
Citations: 294 F. App'x 316
Docket Number: No. 05-77084
Parties: Carlos GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 294
Pages: 316–317

Head Matter:
Carlos GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-77084.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.
Filed Sept. 23, 2008.
Donald Unger, Donald Ungar Attorney at Law, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Andrew C. MacLa-chlan, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, 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 Gomez, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, petitions 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. See Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1159, 1163 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.
The agency properly determined that Gomez was removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), because his convictions for petty theft did not arise out of a single scheme of misconduct and are categorically crimes involving moral turpitude. See United States v. Esparza-Ponce, 193 F.3d 1133, 1136-37 (9th Cir.1999); see also Tall v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2008) (an offense that has an element of intent to defraud or is inherently fraudulent by nature categorically qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.