NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 29 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS MARGARITO QUIROZ-BARRERA, No. 17-71328 Agency No. A088-758-196 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFREY A. ROSEN, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 7, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: BERZON and COLLINS, Circuit Judges, and KATZMANN,*** Judge. Margarito Quiroz-Barrera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding the immigration judge’s determination that Quiroz-Barrera is ineligible for * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). *** The Honorable Gary S. Katzmann, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. cancellation of removal due to a conviction for possession of a controlled substance. We deny the petition. 1. After Quiroz-Barrera pleaded guilty to felony possession of cocaine in violation of California Health and Safety Code § 11350(a), the California state court in January 2002 deferred entry of judgment for 18 months pursuant to a statutory pretrial diversion program. See CAL. PENAL CODE §§ 1000 et seq. Among the conditions for that program were that Quiroz-Barrera obey all court orders, including orders to appear at future hearings. After Quiroz-Barrera failed to appear as ordered at several hearings, the state court in February 2005 terminated the deferral of judgment, reinstated the criminal proceedings, entered a judgment of conviction against Quiroz-Barrera in accordance with his previous plea, and issued a warrant for his arrest. After Quiroz-Barrera was arrested on the warrant in October 2006, he was sentenced a month later to three years of probation pursuant to Proposition 36. See CAL. PENAL CODE § 1210.1(a). As a condition of that probation, Quiroz-Barrera was required to complete a drug treatment program, see id., and after he did so, the state court in September 2007 set aside his guilty plea and dismissed the charges against him. In early 2010, removal proceedings were begun against Quiroz-Barrera, who conceded removability and sought only cancellation of removal under § 240A of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. To be eligible for such 2 cancellation of removal, the alien must not have been convicted of a controlled substance offense. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i), 1227(a)(2)(B), 1229b(b)(1)(C). Quiroz-Barrera conceded that a conviction under California Health and Safety Code § 11350(a) counts as a controlled substance offense that “generally precludes eligibility” for cancellation of removal, and we have held that, as a general rule, rehabilitative relief under state law does not eliminate a state criminal conviction for immigration purposes, Ramirez-Castro v. INS, 287 F.3d 1172, 1174 (9th Cir. 2002). Nonetheless, we also held in Lujan-Armendariz v. INS, 222 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2000), overruled prospectively by Nunez-Reyes v. Holder, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals