NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 4 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DANIEL FERNANDEZ-MANZANO, No. 17-70161 Petitioner, Agency No. A090-514-389 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted March 3, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: CALLAHAN and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENSEN,*** District Judge. Daniel Fernandez-Manzano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel vacated submission of this case pending resolution of United States v. Rodriguez-Gamboa, 972 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2020). The panel hereby re-submits this case as of the date this memorandum is filed. *** The Honorable Dana L. Christensen, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation. review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) removal order based on his California conviction for possessing methamphetamine for sale. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and, reviewing the BIA’s “legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence,” Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted), we deny the petition. 1. Fernandez-Manzano challenges the BIA’s determination that his conviction for possessing methamphetamine for sale under California Health and Safety Code § 11378 disqualified him from asylum and cancellation of removal. He argues that, for purposes of the “categorical approach,” the state law is overbroad since it criminalizes the possession for sale of methamphetamine’s geometric isomers, whereas federal law does not. Assuming that we can consider this argument, it is foreclosed by United States v. Rodriguez-Gamboa, 972 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2020). There we explained that, because methamphetamine has no geometric isomers, it was impossible for a defendant to face criminal liability for their possession. Id. at 1153-54. Given that “the purpose of the categorical approach is to ascertain whether the defendant was necessarily convicted in state court of conduct that would also violate the relevant federal law,” we held that the statute was not actually overbroad. Id. at 1152-54. 2. Fernandez-Manzano also contends that the U.S. Department of Homeland 2 Security failed to establish his removability based on his § 11378 conviction by “clear and convincing evidence.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(A). He argues that the agency’s introduction of his conviction records—the complaint, sentencing memorandum, and plea agreement—was untimely and that the sentencing memorandum was not signed by a judicial officer. These arguments are unavailing. The immigration judge (IJ) has wide latitude to control filing deadlines, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c), and we are unaware of any requirement that a judicial officer must sign otherwise-certified records, see id. § 1003.41. Taken together, the documents provide substantial evidence for the BIA’s conclusion that Fernandez-Manzano had, in fact, been convicted of possessing methamphetamine for sale under § 11378. 3. Finally, Fernandez-Manzano faults the BIA for affirming the IJ’s finding ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals