Ramirez Campos v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Ramirez Campos v. Holder

450 F. App'x 577

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 15, 2011

Docket06-71355

StatusUnpublished

This text of 450 F. App'x 577 (Ramirez Campos v. Holder) 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

Ramirez Campos v. Holder, 450 F. App'x 577 (9th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Juan Ramirez Campos (“Ramirez”), a citizen and national of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. We review the BIA’s legal determinations de novo. Aguiluz-Arellano v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 980, 983 (9th Cir. 2006). When the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s decision as if it were the BIA’s. Molino-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir.2002). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

The BIA correctly determined that ex-pungement of Ramirez’s conviction for possession of marijuana for sale, Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11359, did not eliminate the conviction for immigration purposes. See Ramirez-Castro v. INS, 287 F.3d 1172, 1174 (9th Cir.2002) (state *578 expungement of a criminal conviction generally does not remove its consequences in immigration proceedings). Ramirez’s conviction under § 11359 for possession for sale is not covered by the Federal First Offender Act (“FFOA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3607, which for immigration purposes eliminates only convictions for simple possession. Cardenas-Uriarte v. INS, 227 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir.2000) (“The Federal First Offender Act requires a plea or conviction of possession of a controlled substance, as described in 21 U.S.C. § 844.”), overruled in part on other grounds by Nunez-Reyes v. Holder, 646 F.3d 684 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc). Thus, Ramirez’s § 11359 conviction renders him inadmissible on the basis of a controlled substance violation, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), and ineligible for waiver of inadmissibility under § 1182(h).

Ramirez’s claim that he was denied due process because the BIA did not address his § 1182(h) waiver claim lacks merit. The BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s decision, which discussed the waiver claim. Moreover, because Ramirez is ineligible for waiver under § 1182(h), he cannot make the necessary showing of prejudice. See Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1006 & n. 16 (9th Cir.2003) (an alien “must show prejudice to succeed in a due process challenge”).

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Juan Ramirez Campos (“Ramirez”), a citizen and national of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. We review the BIA’s legal determinations de novo. Aguiluz-Arellano v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 980, 983 (9th Cir. 2006). When the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s decision as if it were the BIA’s. Molino-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir.2002). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

The BIA correctly determined that ex-pungement of Ramirez’s conviction for possession of marijuana for sale, Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11359, did not eliminate the conviction for immigration purposes. See Ramirez-Castro v. INS, 287 F.3d 1172, 1174 (9th Cir.2002) (state *578 expungement of a criminal conviction generally does not remove its consequences in immigration proceedings). Ramirez’s conviction under § 11359 for possession for sale is not covered by the Federal First Offender Act (“FFOA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3607, which for immigration purposes eliminates only convictions for simple possession. Cardenas-Uriarte v. INS, 227 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir.2000) (“The Federal First Offender Act requires a plea or conviction of possession of a controlled substance, as described in 21 U.S.C. § 844.”), overruled in part on other grounds by Nunez-Reyes v. Holder, 646 F.3d 684 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc). Thus, Ramirez’s § 11359 conviction renders him inadmissible on the basis of a controlled substance violation, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), and ineligible for waiver of inadmissibility under § 1182(h).

Ramirez’s claim that he was denied due process because the BIA did not address his § 1182(h) waiver claim lacks merit. The BIA expressly adopted the IJ’s decision, which discussed the waiver claim. Moreover, because Ramirez is ineligible for waiver under § 1182(h), he cannot make the necessary showing of prejudice. See Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1006 & n. 16 (9th Cir.2003) (an alien “must show prejudice to succeed in a due process challenge”).

DENIED.

***

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)

450 F. App'x 577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramirez-campos-v-holder-ca9-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack