Case Name: Jesus Manuel GUTIERREZ-NEYOY, AKA Jesus Manuel Guitierrez-Neyoy, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-02
Citations: 667 F. App'x 925
Docket Number: No. 13-72979
Parties: Jesus Manuel GUTIERREZ-NEYOY, AKA Jesus Manuel Guitierrez-Neyoy, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 925–926

Head Matter:
Jesus Manuel GUTIERREZ-NEYOY, AKA Jesus Manuel Guitierrez-Neyoy, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-72979
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 26, 2016
Filed August 02, 2016
Benjamin Wiesinger, Pope & Associates, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Jesse Matthew Bless, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, 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
Jesus Manuel Gutierrez-Neyoy, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision pretermit-ting his applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Leal v. Holder, 771 F.3d 1140, 1144 (9th Cir. 2014), and deny the petition for review.
Gutierrez-Neyoy's contention that his conviction for felony endangerment under Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-1201(A) is not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude is foreclosed by our decision in Leal v. Holder. Id. at 1146 (felony endangerment in Arizona is a crime involving moral turpitude). Accordingly, the BIA did not err in determining that Gutierrez-Neyoy is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(3), 1229b(b)(1)(B), 1229c(b)(1)(B).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.