Case Name: Mitchelle S. RAMOS, a.k.a. Mitchell Sambrano-Ramos, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-15
Citations: 447 F. App'x 772
Docket Number: No. 10-71803
Parties: Mitchelle S. RAMOS, a.k.a. Mitchell Sambrano-Ramos, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 447
Pages: 772–773

Head Matter:
Mitchelle S. RAMOS, a.k.a. Mitchell Sambrano-Ramos, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-71803.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 11, 2011.
Filed Aug. 15, 2011.
Sin Yen Ling, Esquire, Asian Law Caucus, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Edward C. Durant, Don George Scrog-gin, Esquire, Trial, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Mitchelle S. Ramos, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Padilla-Romero v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1011, 1012 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not err in concluding that Ramos' conviction for unlawful driving and taking of a vehicle under California Vehicle Code § 10851(a) is an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1011(a)(43)(G) that renders him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Ramos' contention that section 10851(a) is overbroad because it encompasses joyriding is unpersuasive. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 947 (9th Cir.2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.