Case Name: Arturo Cornejo NORIANUEVA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-19
Citations: 400 F. App'x 212
Docket Number: No. 08-71385
Parties: Arturo Cornejo NORIANUEVA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, KLEINFELD, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 400
Pages: 212–213

Head Matter:
Arturo Cornejo NORIANUEVA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-71385.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Oct. 6, 2010.
Filed Oct. 19, 2010.
Tyler Alexander Baker, Esquire, Juan-earlos Orellana, Elizabeth J. White, Esquire, Fenwick & West, LLP, Mountain View, CA, for Petitioner.
Andrea Gevas, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, KLEINFELD, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
We review the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals determining that Arturo Cornejo Norianueva is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(B) and (C). Cornejo, an undocumented alien, signed a plea agreement in 2004 pleading guilty to knowing possession of a firearm by an illegal alien in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5). The Board concluded that Cornejo's 2004 conviction was (1) an aggravated felony and (2) a firearms offense, rendering Cor-nejo statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(B) & (C); 1101(f)(8); 1227(a)(2).
Cornejo is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal because he has not been a person of "good moral character" during the 10 years immediately preceding his application. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(l)(B). A person shall not be found to have good moral character if he has at any time been convicted of an aggravated felony. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(8). Cornejo's 2004 conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) qualifies as an aggravated felony. Under Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990), if every conviction under the statute of conviction is also a conviction for the purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act, then the inquiry ends with the fact of conviction, which "perforce qualifies" as the INA offense. Carlos-Blaza v. Holder, 611 F.3d 583, 587 (9th Cir.2010). The INA includes in its definition of an aggravated felony "an offense described in . section 922(g)(1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) . of title 18 (relating to firearms offenses)." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii). Cornejo was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5); therefore, he was convicted of an aggravated felony and is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal.
We therefore need not reach the alternative argument that Cornejo's conviction is also a firearms offense under the modified categorical approach.
PETITION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.