Noli Yago v. Eric Holder, Jr.

514 F. App'x 651
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 25, 2013
Docket10-73362
StatusUnpublished

This text of 514 F. App'x 651 (Noli Yago 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
Noli Yago v. Eric Holder, Jr., 514 F. App'x 651 (9th Cir. 2013).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Noli C. Yago, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). We review de novo questions of law and claims of constitutional violations. Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir.2009). We deny the petition for review.

The agency correctly determined that Yago’s convictions under the California Health and Safety Code were controlled substance offenses for which he is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), where the complaint and judgment of conviction establish that Yago pleaded guilty to three counts involving methamphetamine. See Cabantac v. Holder, 693 F.3d 825, 827 (9th Cir.2012) (where the conviction record specified that a defendant pleaded guilty to a particular count of the complaint, the court can consider the facts alleged in that count); Young v. Holder, 697 F.3d 976, 983 (9th Cir.2012) (en banc) *652 (noting documents court may consider in modified categorical analysis).

The agency also correctly determined that Yago is ineligible for cancellation of removal because his accrual of continuous residence terminated upon his commission of the controlled substance offenses. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a), (d)(1) (requiring seven years of continuous residence, and deeming residence to end upon commission of an offense listed at 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)).

Because Yago failed to identify any error in his proceedings before the IJ, his due process claim is unavailing. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (an alien must show error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

Related

Randy Cabantac v. Eric Holder, Jr.
693 F.3d 825 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Young v. Holder
697 F.3d 976 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Khan v. Holder
584 F.3d 773 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
514 F. App'x 651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/noli-yago-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2013.