Saul Aranda Hurtado v. Pamela Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 17, 2026
• Docket: 21-70443
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 17 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SAUL ARANDA HURTADO, No. 21-70443

Petitioner, Agency No. A088-710-883

v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted February 12, 2026** Pasadena, California

Before: WARDLAW, BADE, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Saul Aranda Hurtado is a native and citizen of Mexico. He petitions for

review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of

removal. Although we generally lack jurisdiction to review judgments regarding

* 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). cancellation of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), we retain jurisdiction to

consider constitutional claims and questions of law, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).

We review the BIA’s legal determinations de novo. Diaz-Jimenez v. Sessions, 902

F.3d 955, 958 (9th Cir. 2018). We deny the petition.

Because Aranda Hurtado was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude

for which a sentence of one year or longer could be imposed, he is statutorily

ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b)(1)(C),

1227(a)(2)(A)(i). A conviction for grand theft in violation of California Penal Code

Section 487(a) is a crime involving moral turpitude. Cf. Castillo-Cruz v. Holder,

581 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[W]e have consistently held that acts of

petty theft constitute crimes of moral turpitude.”); Silva v. Garland, 993 F.3d 705,

710 n.1, 717 (9th Cir. 2021) (explaining that, under California law, “the elements

of petty theft are the same as grand theft, apart from the amount or type of property

taken” and holding that a violation of California’s petty theft statute is a crime of

moral turpitude). At the time of his conviction for grand theft, Aranda Hurtado was

eligible for a potential sentence of one year imprisonment. See Cal. Penal Code

§§ 487, 489(b). We have held that California’s retroactive amendment to the

maximum sentences for misdemeanor convictions, see Cal. Penal Code § 18.5,

does not change the analysis of what a possible sentence could have been at the

time of conviction for immigration purposes. See Velasquez-Rios v. Wilkinson, 988

2 F.3d 1081, 1085–88 (9th Cir. 2021).1 Despite the reclassification of Aranda

Hurtado’s conviction, which reduced the maximum possible sentence from 365

days to 364 days, he is therefore ineligible for cancellation of removal.

Aranda Hurtado argues that the agency violated his due process rights

because his proceedings took more than a decade to complete. But “[e]ven

assuming that extraordinary delays caused by the agency could give rise to a

constitutional claim” in very unusual circumstances, “there were no such ‘very

unusual circumstance[s]’” in Aranda Hurtado’s case. Mendez-Garcia v. Lynch, 840

F.3d 655, 667 (9th Cir. 2016).

PETITION DENIED.2

1 Aranda Hurtado asks us to revisit Velasquez-Rios given the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), which overruled Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). But we did not rely upon or even mention Chevron deference in Velasquez-Rios. See Velasquez-Rios, 988 F.3d at 1083–89. 2 The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.