Rafael Santoyo-Garcia v. Jefferson Sessions

698 F. App'x 454
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedOctober 2, 2017
Docket14-73938
StatusUnpublished

This text of 698 F. App'x 454 (Rafael Santoyo-Garcia v. Jefferson Sessions) 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
Rafael Santoyo-Garcia v. Jefferson Sessions, 698 F. App'x 454 (9th Cir. 2017).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

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 *455 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-Gar-cia 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.

**

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

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

Related

Planes v. Holder
652 F.3d 991 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Melvin Martinez-Lopez
864 F.3d 1034 (Ninth Circuit, 2017)
Coronado v. Holder
759 F.3d 977 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
698 F. App'x 454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rafael-santoyo-garcia-v-jefferson-sessions-ca9-2017.