Court Opinion

ID: 9370452
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-13 18:00:40.278285+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:21.680080
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                               FEB 13 2023
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                            U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAVIER ALFONSO LUNA RIVERA,                      No.   17-72523

              Petitioner,                        Agency No. A205-173-654

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

              Respondent.

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

                            Submitted February 9, 2023**
                               Pasadena, California

Before: SCHROEDER, TALLMAN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

      Javier Alfonso Luna Rivera seeks review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ)

      *
             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).
denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8

U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition.

      The BIA did not err in concluding that Luna Rivera’s conviction under

Section 245(a)(1) of the California Penal Code was a crime involving moral

turpitude (CIMT) under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). See Safaryan v. Barr, 975

F.3d 976, 981 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[A] violation of § 245(a)(1) is categorically a

[CIMT].”).

      Under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C), an alien who is convicted of certain

enumerated offenses, including a CIMT, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), is

“ineligible for cancellation of removal,” Barton v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1442, 1452

(2020), as we have confirmed on many occasions, see, e.g., Ballinas-Lucero v.

Garland, 44 F.4th 1169, 1173 (9th Cir. 2022); Diaz-Flores v. Garland, 993 F.3d

766, 773–74 (9th Cir. 2021).

      Thus, because Luna Rivera’s conviction under Section 245(a)(1) was a

CIMT, he is ineligible for cancellation of removal.

PETITION DENIED.

                                          2