Court Opinion

ID: 9891771
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-19 17:00:47.633879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.786737
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                            OCT 19 2023
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MANUEL EDUARDO MORALES-                          No.   18-70050
ROMERO, AKA Manuel Eduardo, AKA
Manuel Eduardo Morales, AKA Manuel               Agency No. A094-459-451
Romero,

              Petitioner,                        MEMORANDUM*

 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

              Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                            Submitted October 17, 2023**
                                 Phoenix, Arizona

Before: IKUTA, BADE, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

      Manuel Morales-Romero seeks review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of a final order of removal

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
issued by an Immigration Judge (IJ). We have jurisdiction to consider his legal

challenge under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), and deny the petition for review.

      The BIA correctly determined that section 13-3415 of the Arizona Revised

Statutes is divisible. See Romero-Millan v. Garland, 46 F.4th 1032, 1047 (9th Cir.

2022). Morales-Romero does not challenge the BIA’s application of the modified

categorical approach and determination that his conviction under section 13-

3415(A) for possession of cocaine paraphernalia matches a controlled substance

offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), thereby forfeiting any such argument.

See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1080 (9th Cir. 2013). Accordingly,

the BIA correctly determined that Morales-Romero is removable under

§ 1227(a)(2)(B)(i).1

      PETITION DENIED.

      1
        Morales-Romero does not challenge the BIA’s determinations that he is
ineligible for cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under CAT. Nor does he challenge the BIA’s determination that the IJ
did not violate his due process rights. His failure to challenge those conclusions
constitutes forfeiture of the claims. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072,
1080 (9th Cir. 2013).
                                         2