Luis Castillo-Interiano v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Luis Castillo-Interiano v. Eric Holder, Jr.

474 F. App'x 691

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 23, 2012

Docket10-71830

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 474 F. App'x 691 (Luis Castillo-Interiano v. Eric Holder, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Luis Castillo-Interiano v. Eric Holder, Jr., 474 F. App'x 691 (9th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Luis Carlos Castillo-Interiano, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims and questions of law. Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir.2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency found Castillo-Interiano removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A) as an alien convicted of a crime of moral turpitude and an aggravated felony theft offense for his conviction of second degree robbery under California Penal Code § 211. The agency applied the correct legal standard in determining that Castillo-Interiano’s aggravated felony conviction, which resulted in a sentence of three years of imprisonment, was a particularly serious crime. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B).

Castillo-Interiano failed to raise, and therefore waived, any challenge to the BIA’s denial of his applications for CAT relief and cancellation of removal. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir.2011) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in his or her opening brief).

Castillo-Interiano contends that his criminal plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily because his criminal attorney failed to inform him of *692 the immigration consequences of his plea. To the extent that we have jurisdiction, we reject his contention because the minute order clearly states that Castillo-Interiano was advised that his conviction “will have the consequene[e] of deportation.” See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) (the alleged due process violation need not be substantial but must have some possible validity).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Luis Carlos Castillo-Interiano, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims and questions of law. Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir.2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency found Castillo-Interiano removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A) as an alien convicted of a crime of moral turpitude and an aggravated felony theft offense for his conviction of second degree robbery under California Penal Code § 211. The agency applied the correct legal standard in determining that Castillo-Interiano’s aggravated felony conviction, which resulted in a sentence of three years of imprisonment, was a particularly serious crime. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B).

Castillo-Interiano failed to raise, and therefore waived, any challenge to the BIA’s denial of his applications for CAT relief and cancellation of removal. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir.2011) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in his or her opening brief).

Castillo-Interiano contends that his criminal plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily because his criminal attorney failed to inform him of *692 the immigration consequences of his plea. To the extent that we have jurisdiction, we reject his contention because the minute order clearly states that Castillo-Interiano was advised that his conviction “will have the consequene[e] of deportation.” See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) (the alleged due process violation need not be substantial but must have some possible validity).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

474 F. App'x 691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luis-castillo-interiano-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack