Case Name: Saturnino SANDOVAL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-10
Citations: 383 F. App'x 605
Docket Number: No. 08-74646
Parties: Saturnino SANDOVAL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 383
Pages: 605–605

Head Matter:
Saturnino SANDOVAL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-74646.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 10, 2010.
Robert Bradford Jobe, Esquire, Law Offices of Robert B. Jobe, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Saturnino Sandoval, Eloy, AZ, pro se.
Kate Deboer Balaban, Esquire, Trial, Justin Robert Markel, Trial, OIL, Daniel Shieh, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Saturnino Sandoval, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision finding him removable. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Delgado-Hernandez v. Holder, 582 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency properly determined that Sandoval is removable as an aggravated felon under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) because his conviction under California Penal Code § 207(a) for kidnapping is a crime of violence as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F). See id. at 933 (kidnapping is categorically a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) because "all kidnapping cases carry a substantial risk that force will be used").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.