FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 04 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OSBALDO BAHENA ALVAREZ, No. 14-72631
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-857-757
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 27, 2016**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Osbaldo Bahena Alvarez, 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 order denying his application for cancellation of removal. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Latter-Singh v. Holder, 668 F.3d 1156, 1159 (9th Cir. 2012), and deny the petition
for review.
The agency properly concluded that Alvarez’ conviction under California
Penal Code (“C.P.C.”) § 422 is a crime involving moral turpitude under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(i), where the maximum sentence of incarceration that could have
been imposed was one year. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) (describing a crime
involving moral turpitude “for which a sentence of one year or longer may be
imposed); Latter-Singh, 668 F.3d at 1163 (a conviction under C.P.C. § 422 is
categorically a crime involving moral turpitude); C.P.C. § 422 (providing for
punishment “by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year”).
Accordingly, the agency properly concluded that Alvarez is ineligible for
cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(C) (an applicant cannot have
been “convicted of an offense under [8 U.S.C.] section 1182(a)(2) [or]
1227(a)(2)”).
Contrary to Alvarez’ contention, the petty offense exception of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii) does not render him eligible for cancellation of removal, where
his conviction is otherwise covered by 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i). See Mancilla-
Delafuente v. Lynch, 804 F.3d 1262, 1265 (9th Cir. 2015) (a crime of moral
turpitude was not entitled to petty offense exception of 8 U.S.C.
2 14-72631
§1182(a)(2)(A)(ii), where the conviction was potentially punishable by one year
imprisonment, and was covered by § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)).
Contrary to Alvarez’ contention, our decision in Rosas-Casteneda v. Holder,
630 F.3d 881, amended by 655 F.3d 875 (9th Cir. 2011), does not relate to his case.
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Alvarez’ remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-72631