NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 11 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GERMAN AVALOS-CARDONA, No. 21-1406 Agency No. Petitioner, A091-943-326 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 9, 2023 ** San Francisco, California Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Petitioner German Avalos-Cardona is a native and citizen of Mexico. He petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for adjustment of status due to inadmissibility, dismissing his waiver * 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). application under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) as untimely, and denying termination for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “Where . . . the BIA has reviewed the IJ’s decision and incorporated portions of it as its own, we treat the incorporated parts of the IJ’s decision as the BIA’s.” Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Molina-Estrada v. I.N.S., 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2002)). We DENY the petition for review. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and the procedural history of this case, we recount them only as necessary to explain our disposition. 1. The BIA properly held that Avalos-Cardona was ineligible for adjustment of status. We review questions of law de novo. Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir. 2008). The IJ held that Avalos-Cardona’s 2008 conviction under Cal. Penal Code § 273.5, for inflicting injury on his spouse, constituted a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”). 1 A noncitizen with one CIMT may still be admissible if he meets the petty offense exception. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii). But the BIA correctly determined that Avalos- Cardona’s 2008 CIMT conviction did not qualify for the petty offense exception because he also had two 1991 CIMT convictions.2 Id. (limiting the exception to 1 Avalos-Cardona did not challenge the IJ’s ruling before the BIA, and does not challenge it now. 2 The two convictions were for grand theft from a person, in violation of former Cal. Penal Code § 487.2, and possession of marijuana for sale, in 2 noncitizens who have “committed only one crime”); see also Castillo-Cruz v. Holder, 581 F.3d 1154, 1161–62 (9th Cir. 2009). Our decision would not change even if Avalos-Cardona could qualify for a waiver of his two 1991 convictions under the former section 212(c). 3 “[A] grant of section 212(c) relief merely waives the finding of deportability.” Becker v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1000, 1003–04 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Matter of Balderas, 20 I. & N. Dec. 389, 391 (BIA 1991)). “[T]he crimes alleged . …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals