Case Name: Juan Bernardo RAMOS, Petitioner, v. Loretta LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-23
Citations: 627 F. App'x 661
Docket Number: No. 12-74243
Parties: Juan Bernardo RAMOS, Petitioner, v. Loretta LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOULD and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and ZOUHARY, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 627
Pages: 661–662

Head Matter:
Juan Bernardo RAMOS, Petitioner, v. Loretta LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-74243.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 11, 2015.
Filed Dec. 23, 2015.
Fabian C. Serrato, Serrato Law Firm, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner.
Oil, Anh-Thu Mai-Windle, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GOULD and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and ZOUHARY, District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Jack Zouhary, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Juan Ramos challenges the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirming the Immigration Judge's denial of his application for adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for review.
The BIA reasonably concluded Ramos' November 2006 drug conviction, for which he received a $50 fíne, was a "conviction" under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48) ("The term 'conviction' means . the alien has entered a plea of guilty . and the judge has ordered some form of punishment! or] penalty.... "). As the Supreme Court has observed, the terms "punishment" and "penalty" "each undeniably embrace [criminal] fines." S. Union Co. v. United States, — U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 2344, 2351, 183 L.Ed.2d 318 (2012).
Ramos relies on Retuta v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir.2010), where this Court held that "an unconditional-suspended nonincarceratory sanction that has no present effect is not a punishment, penalty, or restraint" under Section 1101(a)(48). Id. at 1190. But unlike in Retuta, Ramos' fine was not suspended. And the rule of lenity is also unavailing, as Ramos fails to show any persisting ambiguity in Section 1101(a)(48) that would trigger its application. See Rodriguez v. Holder, 619 F.3d 1077, 1080 n. 3 (9th Cir.2010) ("Since we hold that the statute is not ambiguous, the rule of lenity does not apply.").
The BIA reasonably concluded Ramos is ineligible for a waiver of inadmissibility or adjustment of status.
DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.