Juventino Chavez-Mondragon v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 13 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUVENTINO CHAVEZ-MONDRAGON, No. 12-70889

Petitioner, Agency No. A077-067-580

v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 11, 2013**

Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

Juventino Chavez-Mondragon, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro

se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision pretermitting Chavez-Mondragon’s

application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

*
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).
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence continuous-residence determinations,

see Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 851 (9th Cir. 2004), and review de

novo questions of law, Castillo-Cruz v. Holder, 581 F.3d 1154, 1159-60 (9th Cir.

2009). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Chavez-

Mondragon lacks the seven years of continuous residence after admission required

for cancellation of removal because his second conviction for petty theft under

California law constitutes a second crime involving moral turpitude that terminated

his accrual of continuous residence before the seven years had elapsed. See

8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(2), (d)(1)(B); see also Castillo-Cruz, 581 F.3d at 1160

(recognizing petty theft under California law as a categorical crime involving

moral turpitude). The petty-offense exception to inadmissibility is unavailable to

excuse Chavez-Mondragon’s multiple convictions for petty theft. See

Castillo-Cruz, 581 F.3d at 1162 (observing that the petty-offense exception at

8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii) is available only if the alien “has committed only one”

crime involving moral turpitude).

Because Chavez-Mondragon’s convictions rendered him statutorily

ineligible for cancellation of removal, the agency did not need to consider whether

his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his

2 12-70889
qualifying relatives. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“[C]ourts

and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is

unnecessary to the results they reach.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 12-70889