NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 3 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ERIKA PILAR LOZA-RODRIGUEZ, No. 18-70451 Petitioner, Agency No. A088-746-763 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 14, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: McKEOWN and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and WHALEY,*** District Judge. Erika Pilar Loza-Rodriguez challenges the Board of Immigration Appeals’ determination that she is not eligible for the petty offense exception under 8 U.S.C. * 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). *** The Honorable Robert H. Whaley, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and review the legal determinations regarding a noncitizen’s eligibility for cancellation of removal de novo. Camacho-Cruz v. Holder, 621 F.3d 941, 942 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. 1. Factual Background. Loza-Rodriguez is a Mexican citizen who entered the United States without inspection. In June 2009, she pleaded guilty to attempted battery with substantial bodily harm, a gross misdemeanor under Nevada law. The court imposed an 11-month suspended sentence with 18 months’ probation. She completed the sentence without incident and ultimately served no jail time. In January 2013, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Loza-Rodriguez for her unlawful presence in the United States. Loza- Rodriguez applied for cancellation of removal, arguing that her prior conviction satisfied the petty offense exception. 2. Petty offense exception. Cancellation of removal for certain nonpermanent residents is available when the applicant can show she has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of at least 10 years, has been a person of good moral character during that time frame, has not been convicted of certain specified offenses, and has established that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the noncitizen’s spouse, parent, or child who is a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident. 8 U.S.C. §1229b(b)(1). The 2 Immigration Judge determined Loza-Rodriguez was not eligible for cancellation of removal because she had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude and that she did not qualify for the petty offense exception. Under the petty offense exception, noncitizens who have committed only one crime involving moral turpitude are not deemed inadmissible when “the maximum penalty possible for the crime of which the [noncitizen] was convicted . . . did not exceed imprisonment for one year and, if the [noncitizen] was convicted of such crime, the [noncitizen] was not sentenced to a term of imprisonment in excess of 6 months (regardless of the extent to which the sentence was ultimately executed).” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II). Under the statute’s plain ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals