From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Santoyo-Garcia v. Sessions

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Oct 2, 2017
No. 14-73938 (9th Cir. Oct. 2, 2017)

Opinion

No. 14-73938

10-02-2017

RAFAEL SANTOYO-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Agency No. A092-783-335 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Rafael Santoyo-Garcia, 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 ("IJ") decision denying his application for cancellation of removal and ordering him removed. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Santoyo-Garcia's conviction under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11377(a), for possession of methamphetamine, constitutes a controlled substance violation that renders him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). See United States v. Martinez-Lopez, 864 F.3d 1034, 1036, 1041 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (holding that a similar California controlled substance statute is divisible with respect to the listed substances); Coronado, 759 F.3d at 984-86 (holding that a § 11377(a) conviction for possession of methamphetamine was a controlled substance violation under the modified categorical approach).

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's denial of cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion, where Santoyo-Garcia does not raise a colorable legal or constitutional claim that would invoke our jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), (D); Planes v. Holder, 652 F.3d 991, 999 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissing petition challenging discretionary denial of cancellation of removal for failure to raise a colorable legal or constitutional challenge).

We deny Santoyo-Garcia's motions for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry Nos. 25 & 26).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.


Summaries of

Santoyo-Garcia v. Sessions

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Oct 2, 2017
No. 14-73938 (9th Cir. Oct. 2, 2017)
Case details for

Santoyo-Garcia v. Sessions

Case Details

Full title:RAFAEL SANTOYO-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Oct 2, 2017

Citations

No. 14-73938 (9th Cir. Oct. 2, 2017)