Case Name: Adrian Montero SOSA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-27
Citations: 610 F. App'x 642
Docket Number: No. 13-71985
Parties: Adrian Montero SOSA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 610
Pages: 642–643

Head Matter:
Adrian Montero SOSA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-71985.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 21, 2015.
Filed July 27, 2015.
Adrian Montero Sosa, Eloy, AZ, pro se.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Benjamin Zeit-lin, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, 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
Adrian Montero Sosa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo question of law, Nunez-Reyes v. Holder, 646 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA correctly determined that Montero Sosa's conviction under California Health & Safety Code § 11550 constitutes a violation of a law "relating to a controlled substance" that renders him ineligible for adjustment of status, where the complaint read in conjunction with the minute order is sufficient to establish that Montero Sosa pleaded guilty to a violation of § 11550 involving phencyclidine. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), 1255(a)(2); United States v. Torre-Jimenez, 771 F.3d 1163, 1168 (9th Cir.2014) (where minute order specifies defendant pleaded guilty to specific count in complaint, court may consider facts alleged in complaint). The BIA did not err in rejecting Montero Sosa's contention that his difficulty in obtaining possible additional conviction documents renders the record of conviction inconclusive.
The subsequent expungement under California Penal Code § 1203.4 of Montero Sosa's conviction does not erase its effect for immigration purposes. See Nunez-Reyes, 646 F.3d at 695 (Federal First Offender Act exception not available for "under the influence" convictions); Ramirez-Castro v. INS, 287 F.3d 1172, 1175 (9th Cir.2002) (expungement of a criminal conviction under § 1203.4 generally does not remove its immigration consequences). There is no factual basis in the record to distinguish Montero Sosa's situation from the one presented in Nunez-Reyes for purposes of applying the Nunez-Reyes holding to Montero Sosa. See Nunez-Reyes, 646 F.3d at 695 n. 7 (applying Nunez-Reyes retroactively where petitioner pleaded guilty years before Rice v. Holder, 597 F.3d 952 (9th Cir.2010)).
Montero Sosa's motion to strike respondent's brief is denied.
Montero Sosa's motion to remand, based on new evidence that his conviction has been vacated under California Penal Code § 1016.5, is also denied. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (the court's review is limited to the administrative record); Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc) (new evidence may be added to the record through a motion to reopen with the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.