Luis Gonzalez-Flores v. William Barr

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 8, 2020
• Docket: 16-70072
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 8 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS ANTONIO GONZALEZ-FLORES, No. 16-70072 AKA Antonio Luis Gonzales, AKA Antonio Gonzalez, AKA Luis Antonio Gonzalez, Agency No. A092-620-418 AKA Luis Antonio Gonzolez,

Petitioner, MEMORANDUM*

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 2, 2020**

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Luis Antonio Gonzalez-Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal.

* 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). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law.

Latter-Singh v. Holder, 668 F.3d 1156, 1159 (9th Cir. 2012). We deny the petition

for review.

The agency did not err in concluding that Matter of Leal, 26 I. & N. Dec. 20

(BIA 2012), which held that a conviction for felony endangerment under Arizona

Revised Statutes § 13-1201 is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude,

applies retroactively. See Olivas-Motta v. Whitaker, 910 F.3d 1271, 1276-79 (9th

Cir. 2018) (concluding that Matter of Leal did not represent a change in the law

and therefore applies retroactively).

We deny Gonzalez-Flores’s motion to terminate or remand where his

contention that the agency lacked jurisdiction is foreclosed by Karingithi v.

Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-62 (9th Cir. 2019) (notice to appear need not

include time and date of hearing to vest jurisdiction in the immigration court).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 16-70072