NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN CARLOS OCHOA-HUERTA, No. 16-72419
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-963-272
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Juan Carlos Ochoa-Huerta, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying 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).
Espino-Castillo v. Holder, 770 F.3d 861, 863 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition
for review.
Ochoa-Huerta has not established any error in the agency’s determination
that his conviction under Nevada Revised Statute §§ 205.760, 193.330 is
categorically a crime involving moral turpitude, because it requires proof of “intent
to defraud” as an element of the crime. See Espino-Castillo, 770 F.3d at 863-64
(recognizing the “longstanding rule that crimes that have fraud as an element are
categorically crimes involving moral turpitude,” and a “court may not apply the
modified categorical approach if the statute proscribes only conduct that involves
moral turpitude” (alterations, citations, and quotation marks omitted)); Castrijon-
Garcia v. Holder, 704 F.3d 1205, 1209 n.2 (9th Cir. 2013) (the court looks to the
underlying crime in determining whether a conviction for attempt constitutes a
crime involving moral turpitude). Accordingly, Ochoa-Huerta is ineligible for
cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C); 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach, and the BIA was not required to
address, Ochoa-Huerta’s remaining contentions regarding his alleged controlled
substance conviction. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010)
(review is limited to the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA); see also Simeonov
v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required
to reach non-dispositive issues).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 16-72419