NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
APR 13 2016
OSCAR SANCHEZ, No. 13-72160 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Petitioner, Agency No. A092-344-991
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 6, 2016**
Pasadena, California
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Oscar Sanchez seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
("BIA") decision to dismiss his appeal from an immigration judge’s finding that he
had been convicted of an offense relating to a controlled substance. We dismiss.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The BIA properly found that Petitioner’s 2001 offense was "related to a
controlled substance." As the BIA noted, the evidence of record demonstrated that
Petitioner was convicted for possession of cocaine in 2001: "Count 1" of the
Felony Complaint alleged that Petitioner "unlawfully possess[ed] a controlled
substance, to wit, cocaine" in violation of California Health and Safety Code
section 11350(a); the Guilty Plea noted that Petitioner pleaded guilty to "Count 1"
relating to his charge under "H&S 11350"; and the Minute Order showed that
Petitioner pleaded guilty to "Count 01: 11350(A) H&S FEL." AR 88, 85, 82.
Taken together, these documents established that his conviction related to a
controlled substance.
This case is indistinguishable from United States v. Leal-Vega, 680 F.3d
1160, 1168 (9th Cir. 2012). There, we held that a felony complaint, in which
"Count 1" charged the petitioner with possession of "a controlled substance, to wit,
TAR HEROIN" in violation of California Health and Safety Code section 11351,
established that the petitioner had possessed tar heroin—and, therefore, possessed a
controlled substance—when viewed alongside an abstract of judgment stating that
the petitioner was convicted of "count 1 under HS 11351P"; a minute order that
showed he pleaded guilty to "Count(s) 1" and that his charges for that count were
under "11351 HS–FC"; and a felony plea form in which he pleaded guilty to
2
"11351 H&S." See also Cabantac v. Holder, 736 F.3d 787, 794 (9th Cir. 2013)
(per curiam) ("[W]here, as here, the abstract of judgment or minute order specifies
that a defendant pleaded guilty to a particular count of the criminal complaint or
indictment, we can consider the facts alleged in that count.").
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), we lack jurisdiction to review a final order
of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed a
criminal offense covered by 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2). That statute, in turn, provides
that an alien who has been convicted of a controlled substance offense is
inadmissible. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). Accordingly, we must dismiss the
petition.
Petition DISMISSED.
3