Court Opinion

ID: 9371684
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-16 18:00:30.924037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:29.506001
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 16 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAFAEL CAPILLA-MORALES,                         No.    20-70875

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A070-747-263

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

                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted February 13, 2023**
                            San Francisco, California

Before: WARDLAW, NGUYEN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

      Rafael Capilla-Morales, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming an immigration

judge (“IJ”) order denying cancellation of removal. The BIA concluded that

Capilla-Morales’ conviction under California Penal Code § 273.5(a) qualifies as a

      *
             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).
crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”) under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2), rendering

him ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(C). We

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

      1.      Capilla-Morales does not dispute that his conviction for infliction of

corporal injury on his spouse under Section 273.5(a) qualifies as a CIMT. See

8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2). Nor does he dispute that his offense carried a maximum

sentence of at least one year. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). However,

Capilla-Morales contends that his conviction under Section 273.5(a) was not for

“an offense under” Section 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) that would bar him from cancellation

of removal because he did not commit the CIMT within five years of admission to

the United States. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b)(1)(C), 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(I).

      The BIA rejected this argument based on its decision in Matter of Ortega-

Lopez, 27 I. & N. Dec. 382 (BIA 2018). There, the BIA concluded that, “pursuant

to the cross-reference in § 1229b(b)(1)(C), [a noncitizen] is ineligible for

cancellation of removal if the [noncitizen] has been convicted of a [CIMT] for

which a sentence of one year or more may be imposed, regardless whether the

[noncitizen] meets the immigration prerequisites for inadmissibility or

deportability.” Ortega-Lopez v. Barr, 978 F.3d 680, 693 (9th Cir. 2020). We

recently concluded that the BIA’s interpretation of Section 1229b(b)(1)(C) in

Matter of Ortega-Lopez is permissible and therefore entitled to deference

                                          2
under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S.

837 (1984). Ortega-Lopez, 978 F.3d at 690–93. Our decision in Ortega-Lopez

thus forecloses Capilla-Morales’ argument based on the date he committed the

CIMT.

      2.     Capilla-Morales also argues that his conviction does not qualify as an

“offense under” Section 1227(a)(2) because it is eligible for the “petty offense”

exception set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii). Like the petitioner in Ortega-

Lopez, Capilla-Morales relies on Matter of Garcia-Hernandez, 23 I. & N. Dec.

590, 593 (BIA 2003), which held that Section 1229b(b)(1)(C) incorporated the

“petty offense” exception, such that a noncitizen who has been convicted of a

CIMT that falls within this exception is eligible for cancellation of removal.

Recognizing that Matter of Garcia-Hernandez was abrogated in part by Gonzalez-

Gonzalez v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 649, 652 (9th Cir. 2004), we rejected the argument

that the BIA’s interpretation of Section 1229b(b)(1)(C) conflicts with Matter of

Garcia-Hernandez. Ortega-Lopez, 978 F.3d at 692 n.11. Therefore, Capilla-

Morales’ domestic violence conviction renders him ineligible for cancellation of

removal, and we deny the petition.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                          3