Zamir Alvarez-Gomez v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 24, 2021
• Docket: 18-73202
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 24 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ZAMIR GABRIEL ALVAREZ-GOMEZ, No. 18-73202 AKA Josei Guema, Agency No. A095-789-832 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted June 21, 2021**

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Zamir Gabriel Alvarez-Gomez, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order granting respondent’s

motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

* 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). abuse of discretion the BIA’s ruling on a motion to reconsider. Mohammed v.

Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Alvarez-Gomez does not challenge the agency’s

determination that his 1999 conviction constitutes a crime involving moral

turpitude. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013)

(issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in granting respondent’s motion to

reconsider, where Alvarez-Gomez’s contention that his 1999 conviction is no

longer a disqualifying conviction for cancellation of removal purposes under an

amendment to California Penal Code § 18.5 is foreclosed by Velasquez-Rios v.

Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1081, 1089 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that “California’s

amendment to § 18.5 of the California Penal Code, which retroactively reduces the

maximum misdemeanor sentence to 364 days for purposes of state law, cannot be

applied retroactively for purposes of § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i).”).

The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 18-73202