FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS CARLOS CASTILLO- No. 10-71830
INTERIANO, a.k.a. Luis Carlos Castillo,
Agency No. A075-655-017
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Luis Carlos Castillo-Interiano, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for
*
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).
asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”), and cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. §
1252. We review de novo due process claims and questions of law. Hamazaspyan
v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
The agency found Castillo-Interiano removable under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(A) as an alien convicted of a crime of moral turpitude and an
aggravated felony theft offense for his conviction of second degree robbery under
California Penal Code § 211. The agency applied the correct legal standard in
determining that Castillo-Interiano’s aggravated felony conviction, which resulted
in a sentence of three years of imprisonment, was a particularly serious crime. See
8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B).
Castillo-Interiano failed to raise, and therefore waived, any challenge to the
BIA’s denial of his applications for CAT relief and cancellation of removal. See
Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (a petitioner waives an
issue by failing to raise it in his or her opening brief).
Castillo-Interiano contends that his criminal plea was not entered knowingly,
intelligently and voluntarily because his criminal attorney failed to inform him of
the immigration consequences of his plea. To the extent that we have jurisdiction,
2 10-71830
we reject his contention because the minute order clearly states that Castillo-
Interiano was advised that his conviction “will have the consequenc[e] of
deportation.” See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005)
(the alleged due process violation need not be substantial but must have some
possible validity).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 10-71830