FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 08 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EVIN ALEJANDRO ABREGO- No. 07-73916
HERNANDEZ,
Agency No. A043-735-121
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009 **
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Evin Alejandro Abrego-Hernandez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
IH/Research
cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye
v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and review de novo questions
of law, Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the
petition for review.
The transcript of the plea colloquy in the record establishes that Abrego-
Hernandez pled “no contest” to the California offense of being a felon in
possession of a firearm. The agency accordingly did not err in concluding that
Abrego-Hernandez’s conviction for violating California Penal Code § 12021(a)(1)
was for an offense “described in” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and therefore an
aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii). See United States v. De
Jesus Castillo-Rivera, 244 F.3d 1020, 1023 (9th Cir. 2001); see also 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(48)(A) (a plea of nolo contendre resulting in some form of punishment is
a conviction for immigration purposes).
We reject Abrego-Hernandez’s contentions regarding his allegedly defective
criminal convictions, as we cannot collaterally reexamine these convictions here.
See Ortega de Robles v. INS, 58 F.3d 1355, 1358 (9th Cir. 1995).
IH/Research 2 07-73916
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal
on the ground that Abrego-Hernandez failed to establish a nexus to a statutorily
protected ground. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 946 (9th Cir. 2007); Lim
v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 938 (9th Cir. 2000).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Abrego-Hernandez did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at the
instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of the Salvadoran government.
See Arteaga, 511 F.3d at 948-49.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
IH/Research 3 07-73916