Jose Elias-Zendejas v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 535 F. App'x 620 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 01 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LUIS ELIAS-ZENDEJAS, No. 12-71082
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-244-571
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 24, 2013 **
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Jose Luis Elias-Zendejas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d
*
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).
773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The BIA properly determined that Elias-Zenedejas’ conviction
for inflicting corporal injury on the mother of his children, in violation of
California Penal Code § 273.5, is a crime of domestic violence under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) that renders him statutorily ineligible for cancellation of
removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C); Banuelos-Ayon v. Holder, 611 F.3d
1080, 1083-86 (9th Cir. 2010); Vasquez-Hernandez v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1053,
1056-57 (9th Cir. 2010) (petty offense exception available in removal context does
not apply to petitioner’s eligibility for cancellation of removal based on his
conviction under California Penal Code § 273.5).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Elias-Zendejas’ claim that the IJ should
have granted him a continuance because he failed to raise that claim before the
BIA and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Tijani v.
Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 12-71082