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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 13 2013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
FERNANDO O. PEREYRA- No. 10-72919
SAAVEDRA,
Agency No. A046-635-414
Petitioner,
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.
Fernando O. Pereyra-Saavedra, a native and citizen of Bolivia, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal
from the decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying Pereyra-Saavedra’s
*
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).
application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182,
1189 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision to deny Pereyra-
Saavedra’s application for cancellation of removal, because his pleadings before
the IJ establish that he is an arriving alien who is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) due to his theft conviction under California Penal Code
§ 487(c). See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(13)(C)(v), 1252(a)(2)(C); see also Pagayon,
675 F.3d at 1189 (holding that a petitioner’s pleading-stage admissions and
concessions may be sufficient to establish removability). Pereyra-Saavedra does
not raise a colorable constitutional claim or question of law sufficient to establish
our jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey,
552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2009) (“To be colorable in this context . . . , the claim
[or question] must have some possible validity.” (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted)); see also Sawyers v. Holder, 684 F.3d 911, 912 (9th Cir. 2012)
(per curiam) (rejecting a petitioner’s imputation argument concerning his parent’s
residence).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
2 10-72919