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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 13 2013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