Renato Romero-Frisby v. Eric Holder, Jr.

545 F. App'x 690
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedNovember 22, 2013
Docket17-60082
StatusUnpublished

This text of 545 F. App'x 690 (Renato Romero-Frisby 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
Renato Romero-Frisby v. Eric Holder, Jr., 545 F. App'x 690 (9th Cir. 2013).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Renato Romero-Frisby petitions for review of a BIA determination that Romero is removable and ineligible for withholding of removal. We affirm the BIA and dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Romero’s conviction under Arizona law for attempted possession of methamphetamine with the intent to sell, Ariz.Rev. Stat. §§ 13-1001, 13-3407(A)(2), is a drug trafficking crime and therefore an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). Possession of methamphetamine with the intent to sell is categorically a drug trafficking crime because it is a “felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act [CSA].” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2); 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(8), 802(11), 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). The CSA criminalizes any attempt to violate its prohibitions, 21 U.S.C. § 846, and “Arizona’s definition of attempt is coextensive with the federal definition.” United States v. Gomez, 732 F.3d 971, 984 n. 10 (9th Cir.2013); see also United States v. Gomez-Hernandez, 680 F.3d 1171, 1175 (9th Cir.2012); United States v. Taylor, 529 F.3d 1232, 1238 (9th Cir.2008). Although these cases arose in the criminal context, “where a statute ‘has both criminal and noncriminal applications,’ the statute should be consistently interpreted in both criminal and noncriminal, i.e., immigration, applications.” Martinez-Perez v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 1022, 1028 n. 3 (9th Cir.2004) (quoting Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 11 n. 8, 125 S.Ct. 377, 160 L.Ed.2d 271 (2004)). Because the CSA criminalizes “attempt,” 21 U.S.C. § 846, it is irrelevant that the government did not reallege that Romero was removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(U).

*691 Because Romero was convicted of an aggravated felony, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); Lopez-Jacuinde v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1215, 1217 (9th Cir.2010).

PETITION DISMISSED.

**

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

Lopez-Jacuinde v. Holder
600 F.3d 1215 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Leocal v. Ashcroft
543 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 2004)
United States v. Gomez-Hernandez
680 F.3d 1171 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
United States v. Faustino Gomez
732 F.3d 971 (Ninth Circuit, 2013)
United States v. Taylor
529 F.3d 1232 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
545 F. App'x 690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/renato-romero-frisby-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2013.