NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 21 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ALBERTO GOMEZ-ORTIZ, No. 13-74408
Petitioner, Agency No. A093-448-668
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Jose Alberto Gomez-Ortiz, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Pinto v.
*
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).
Holder, 648 F.3d 976, 986 (9th Cir. 2011) (BIA order denying relief from removal,
but remanding for voluntary departure proceedings, is a final order of removal).
We review de novo questions of law. Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977, 982 (9th
Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
The agency properly denied cancellation of removal, where the conviction
documents unambiguously indicate that Gomez-Ortiz was convicted under
California Health & Safety Code (“CHSC”) Section 11550(a), which is a
controlled substance offense. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II),
1229b(b)(1)(C); Tejeda v. Barr, 960 F.3d 1184, 1186 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding
CHSC § 11550(a) is divisible with regard to substance and subject to the modified
categorical approach); Cabantac v. Holder, 736 F.3d 787, 793-94 (9th Cir. 2013)
(Under the modified categorical approach, where “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.”).
Gomez-Ortiz’s request for oral argument, raised in his opening brief, is
denied.
The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-74408