Cather v. Holder , 397 F. App'x 318 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL LEVENS CATHER, No. 05-74508
Petitioner, Agency No. A008-914-163
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Michael Levens Cather, a native and citizen of the United Kingdom,
petitions 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 and constitutional claims,
*
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).
Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for
review.
Cather does not challenge the agency’s determination that he is removable
under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) based on his two 1992 convictions for lewd or
lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age in violation of California Penal
Code § 288(a).
The agency determined that Cather is ineligible for relief under former
section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996), because his ground of
removability lacks a statutory counterpart in a ground of inadmissibility. See
8 C.F.R. § 1212.3(f)(5). Cather’s legal and constitutional challenges to this
determination are foreclosed by Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1207, 1208 n.7
(9th Cir. 2009) (en banc); see also Aragon-Ayon v. INS, 206 F.3d 847, 853 (9th
Cir. 2000) (“We are satisfied that Congress intended the 1996 amendments to
make the aggravated felony definition apply retroactively to all defined offenses
whenever committed.”).
In light of our disposition, we need not address Cather’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 05-74508