FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO HERRERA HERNANDEZ, No. 14-72850
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-087-809
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Herrera Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision finding him removable and pretermitting his
application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Mielewczyk v. Holder, 575 F.3d 992,
994 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA correctly determined that Herrera Hernandez’s conviction under
California Health and Safety Code § 11360(a) constitutes an offense in violation of
a law relating to a controlled substance under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) that
renders him removable and statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8
U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C); Mielewczyk, 575 F.3d at 994-98 & n. 1 (finding the plain
language of § 11352(a), a statute “largely identical” to § 11360(a), relates to a
controlled substance, and “the distinction between a generic solicitation statute or
one specifically aimed at controlled substances is critical when our inquiry is
whether the statute of conviction is a state law relating to controlled substances”).
We do not reach Herrera Hernandez’s contentions that his first conviction
was vacated and therefore does not make him removable, and that his § 11360(a)
conviction is not an aggravated felony, because the BIA did not rely upon those
grounds in finding him removable or ineligible for relief. See Najmabadi v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[O]ur review is limited to the actual
grounds relied upon by the BIA.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).
2 14-72850
We do not address Herrera Hernandez’s due process contention. See
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in
a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-72850