NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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
ARIEL GUILLERMO ROJAS-SALAZAR, No. 17-73462
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-405-804
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.
Ariel Guillermo Rojas-Salazar, 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 denying his application for cancellation of
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
*
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).
questions of law. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not err in denying Rojas-Salazar’s application for cancellation
of removal, where his conviction under Nev. Rev. Stat. (“NRS”) §§ 193.330,
205.690(2) was a crime involving moral turpitude. See 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), 1227(a)(2)(A)(i), 1229b(b)(1)(C); Mancilla-Delafuente v.
Lynch, 804 F.3d 1262, 1265 (9th Cir. 2015) (NRS § 205.690(2) is categorically a
crime involving moral turpitude). Rojas-Salazar’s contention that the BIA erred in
not analyzing his conviction as a theft offense fails. See Mancilla-Delafuente, 804
F.3d at 1266 (“element of intent to defraud applies to all conduct proscribed by
NRS § 205.690(2)”). To the extent Rojas-Salazar contends that the record is
ambiguous as to the subsection of his conviction and he was therefore eligible for
relief, his contention fails. See Pereida v. Wilkinson, 141 S. Ct. 754, 766 (2021)
(an inconclusive conviction record is insufficient to meet applicant’s burden of
proof to show eligibility for relief). Finally, Rojas-Salazar’s contention that the
BIA erred in its determination that he did not dispute the subsection of his statute
of conviction fails as unsupported by the record. See Alanniz v. Barr, 924 F.3d
1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2019) (no error in BIA’s waiver determination).
The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 17-73462