NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MISAEL VENCES MAYA, AKA Misael No. 16-73285
Maya, AKA Leonel Morales Carmona,
AKA Misael Quintero, Agency No. A077-287-810
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 14, 2018**
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Misael Vences Maya, a citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an immigration judge (IJ)
determination that he is removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). We
*
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).
previously granted Vences Maya’s petition for review of the same removability
determination and remanded for reconsideration in light of our intervening opinion
of Medina-Lara v. Holder, 771 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2014). 621 F. App’x 378 (9th
Cir. 2015). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
California Health and Safety Code § 11377(a) is a divisible statute as to the
type of controlled substance possessed. Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977, 983-85
(9th Cir. 2014); accord United States v. Ocampo-Estrada, 873 F.3d 661, 668 & n.4
(9th Cir. 2017).1 Therefore, we look to a “limited set of documents to determine
which statutory phrase was the basis for” Vences Maya’s conviction. United
States v. Martinez-Lopez, 864 F.3d 1034, 1043 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (internal
quotation mark and citation omitted).
Here, the government must prove the link between the abstract of judgment
(which does not identify a particular controlled substance) and the charging
document (which specifies that the charge was for possession of
methamphetamine) by clear and convincing evidence. Medina-Lara, 771 F.3d at
1113. We find that the government has met its burden. Unlike in Medina-Lara,
where there were “three competing explanations” for the record’s ambiguity, id. at
1
While Coronado may have placed “undue emphasis on the disjunctive-list
rationale” approach to divisibility, United States v. Martinez-Lopez, 864 F.3d 1034,
1039 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc), Vences Maya does not argue that Martinez-Lopez
overruled it.
2
1115, there is a single, and persuasive, explanation for the listing of “Count 5a”
instead of “Count 5” on the abstract of judgment: the additional letter matches the
charge to the corresponding case number. Vences Maya is therefore removable as
charged.
PETITION DENIED.
3