Virginio Delabra-Rebollar v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 420 F. App'x 714 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 10 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VIRGINIO DELABRA-REBOLLAR, No. 09-71694
a.k.a. Flavio Delabra, a.k.a. Virginio
Delabra, Jr., a.k.a. Virginio Delabra, a.k.a. Agency No. A090-063-073
Virgino Delabra, Jr., a.k.a. Virginio Sina
Delabra-Rebo, a.k.a. Flavio Rebollar-
Delabra, MEMORANDUM *
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Virginio Delabra-Rebollar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cazarez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 382
F.3d 905, 909 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review.
Delabra-Rebollar’s conviction for violating California Health and Safety
Code § 11378 is an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). See id. at
919 (a state drug offense is an aggravated felony for immigration purposes if it
contains a trafficking element). Contrary to Delabra-Rebollar’s contention, the
record of conviction establishes that he was convicted of selling
methamphetamine. See Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 16 (2005) (charging
document and transcript of plea colloquy may be used for modified categorical
analysis).
In his opening brief, Delabra-Rebollar did not challenge the agency’s denial
of his application for withholding of removal and, therefore, has waived this issue.
See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).
In light of our disposition, we need not address Delabra-Rebollar’s
remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-71694