Case Name: Osberto MENDEZ-QUICHE, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-23
Citations: 674 F. App'x 731
Docket Number: No. 14-73916
Parties: Osberto MENDEZ-QUICHE, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 674
Pages: 731–732

Head Matter:
Osberto MENDEZ-QUICHE, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-73916
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted January 18, 2017
Filed January 23, 2017
Antonio M. Zaldana, Attorney, Law Office of Antonio M. Zaldana, Whittier, CA, for Petitioner
Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Robert Dale Tennyson, Jr., Ph. D., Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, 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
Osberto Mendez-Quiche, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Retuta v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The IJ correctly determined that Mendez-Quiche's two convictions for violating California Penal Code § 647(b) are crimes involving moral turpitude. See Rohit v. Holder, 670 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2012) (solicitation of prostitution under § 647(b) is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude). To the extent Mendez-Quiche suggests the panel should overrule Rohit v. Holder, "[a] three-judge panel cannot reconsider or overrule circuit precedent" in the absence of an intervening Supreme Court or en banc decision. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 2011).
The IJ correctly determined that Mendez-Quiche's 2007 plea of nolo contendere to a violation of California Penal Code § 647(b) is a conviction for immigration purposes. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48); Reyes v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir. 2016) ("The federal definition of conviction where adjudication of guilt has been withheld includes aliens who have entered pleas of nolo contendere and 'the judge has ordered some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint on the alien's liberty to be imposed.' " (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(48)(ii))); cf. Retuta, 591 F.3d at 1181 (holding that "an unconditional suspended non-incarceratory sanction that has no present effect is not a punishment, penalty, or restraint" under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)).
Accordingly, because Mendez-Quiche has been convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude, the IJ correctly determined that he is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(C).
Mendez-Quiche's contention that the BIA erred in summarily affirming the IJ's .decision is without merit. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4)(i) (setting forth situations that are appropriate for affirmance without opinion).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.