Juan Carrillo Cruz v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 6 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN CARRILLO CRUZ, No. 09-73147 Petitioner, Agency No. A044-334-442 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 27, 2011 ** Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Juan Carrillo Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. * 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). We review de novo questions of law, S-Yong v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1028, 1034 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review. Carrillo Cruz correctly contends that his conviction under California Health & Safety Code § 11351, for possession of a controlled substance for sale, is not categorically a controlled substance offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), or a drug trafficking aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). See S-Yong, 600 F.3d at 1034 (“We have previously found that California law regulates the possession and sale of many substances that are not regulated by the [federal Controlled Substances Act]”). Carrillo Cruz, however, provides no coherent argument in his opening brief as to how the conviction documents are insufficient to demonstrate that his conviction constitutes a removable controlled substance offense, and a drug trafficking aggravated felony, under the “modified categorical approach.” See id. at 1035. Accordingly, we deem the issue waived and deny the petition for review. See San Diego Unified Port Dist. v. Gianturco, 651 F.2d 1306, 1319 n.36 (9th Cir. 1981) (deeming issue waived where briefing contained little more than an assertion of error and court was “left to guess precisely what [appellants] meant to argue”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 09-73147