FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 30 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NATHANIEL RORY STEELE, No. 07-74463
Petitioner, Agency No. A023-557-240
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2011 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Nathaniel Rory Steele, a native and citizen of South Africa, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Hamazaspyan v.
*
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).
Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The agency properly found Steele ineligible for cancellation of removal
based upon his 1994 conviction for an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(43)(B). See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3); Rendon v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 967,
976 (9th Cir. 2008) (conviction for possession of marijuana for sale is categorically
an “aggravated felony” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B)); see also Becker v.
Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1000, 1002-04 (9th Cir. 2007) (upholding retroactive
application of the expanded “aggravated felony” definition under Illegal
Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act, Pub. L. No. 104-208, § 321, 110
Stat. 3009 (1996)).
The agency also properly found that Steele could not apply for both
cancellation of removal and a waiver under former section 212(c). See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(c)(6); Becker, 473 F.3d at 1003.
We lack jurisdiction to review Steele’s contentions that his conviction for
violating Cal. Penal Code § 475 is not a crime involving moral turpitude under
8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), and, alternatively, that it qualifies for the petty
offense exception under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), because Steele failed to
2 07-74463
exhaust these contentions before the agency. See Tall v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 1115,
1120 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 07-74463