FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 17 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLO ENDOZO CARINGAL, No. 09-70041
Petitioner, Agency No. A047-421-079
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 2, 2010 **
San Francisco, California
Before: PAEZ and BEA, Circuit Judges, and DUFFY, Senior District Judge.***
Petitioner Carlo Endozo Caringal (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of the
Philippines, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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 Kevin Thomas Duffy, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
finding Petitioner to be removable and statutorily ineligible for cancellation of
removal.
Petitioner is removable for his convictions for two crimes involving moral
turpitude which two crimes did not arise out of a single scheme of criminal
misconduct. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii). These two unrelated crimes
resulted in separate convictions for petty theft and burglary. Petitioner fails to seek
review of the BIA’s findings that his petty theft and burglary offenses are crimes
involving moral turpitude.
We have held that “arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are
deemed waived.” Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999). Hence,
Petitioner waives these issues. He is thus removable for having committed two
crimes involving moral turpitude that did not arise out of a single scheme of
criminal misconduct.
Petitioner is further not statutorily eligible for cancellation of removal
because he had not accrued the necessary seven years of continuous residence to
qualify for relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). Petitioner’s crimes terminated his
continuous residence before he accrued seven years of continuous residence. See 8
U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1) (“[A]ny period of continuous residence . . . in the United
2
States shall be deemed to end . . . when the alien has committed an offense referred
to in [8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)].”).
Finally, Petitioner is not entitled to a waiver of inadmissibility under 8
U.S.C. § 1182(h) because he was found to be removable, not inadmissible, due to
his two convictions for crimes involving moral turpitude. § 1182(h) does not
provide a waiver of removability.
We need not reach the issue of whether Petitioner’s drug conviction also
renders him removable.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3