Zamir Alvarez-Gomez v. Merrick Garland

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 24 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK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