NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 17 2019 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS VICTOR MANUEL ROCHA-FLORES, No. 17-71518 AKA Victor Manuel Rocha, Agency No. A205-536-216 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 11, 2019** San Francisco, California Before: WALLACE, BEA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Victor Manuel Rocha-Flores petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his application for cancellation of removal and request for voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. Rocha-Flores, a citizen of Mexico, has resided in the United States * 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). undocumented since at least 2003. In 2013, he was placed in removal proceedings as an alien present without being admitted or paroled, in which he did not contest removability. Instead, Rocha-Flores applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) and, in the alternative, requested voluntary departure under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b)(1). In 2014, Rocha-Flores pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine under California Health & Safety Code section 11377(a) (Section 11377(a)). An immigration judge subsequently denied Rocha-Flores’s application for cancellation of removal and request for voluntary departure, concluding that Rocha-Flores’s conviction under Section 11377(a) barred both forms of relief. Rocha-Flores appealed that ruling to the Board, which dismissed his appeal on the same grounds. Rocha-Flores timely petitioned this court for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). We review the Board’s determination of purely legal questions de novo, Vasquez- Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003), including whether a state conviction is an offense with immigration consequences, see Arellano Hernandez v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 2016), whether a statute is divisible, see United States v. Martinez-Lopez, 864 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 523 (2017), and determining the elements of a statute of conviction, Vasquez-Valle v. Sessions, 899 F.3d 834, 838 (9th Cir. 2018). To be eligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) or for voluntary departure under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b), Rocha-Flores must establish, inter alia, 2 that he has not been convicted of an offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A).1 An offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A) includes “a violation of . . . any law or regulation of a State . . . relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of Title 21) . . . .” See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). Accordingly, the central question on appeal is whether Rocha-Flores’s conviction for possession of methamphetamine under Section 11377(a) qualifies as a controlled substance offense under federal law. To determine whether a state conviction ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals