Case Name: THAN MIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-27
Citations: 397 F. App'x 325
Docket Number: No. 06-70205
Parties: THAN MIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 397
Pages: 325–326

Head Matter:
THAN MIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-70205.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Sept. 27, 2010.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Than Min, a native and citizen of Cambodia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and de novo questions of law, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.
The agency properly denied Min's motion to reopen to apply for relief under former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996), because he agreed to plead guilty pursuant to a plea agreement made after April 1, 1997, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.44(b)(2), and because his crime of violence aggravated felony ground of re-movability lacks a statutory counterpart in a ground of inadmissibility, see Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701, 706 (9th Cir.2010).
Min's due process retroactivity contentions are unavailing. See Saravia-Paguada v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 1122, 1132-33 (9th Cir.2007) (the past relevant conduct for the retroactivity analysis is the alien's decision whether to enter a guilty plea or proceed to trial, not the commission of the underlying crime).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.