Contreras-Aguilar v. Holder , 394 F. App'x 362 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            AUG 31 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JUAN RAUL NUILA-CHAVEZ,                          No. 06-73681
    Petitioner,                       Agency No. A091-514-613
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted August 23, 2010 **
    Before:        LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    Juan Raul Nuila-Chavez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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
    .
    *
    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).
    We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims, Khan v. Holder,
    
    584 F.3d 773
    , 776 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review.
    Nuila-Chavez does not challenge the agency’s determination that he is
    removable under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1227
    (a)(2)(A)(iii) based on his 1991 conviction 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 Nulia-Chavez 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    (c) (repealed 1996), because his ground of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). Nuila-Chavez’s retroactivity and equal protection
    challenges to this determination are unavailing. See 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.”).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                    06-73681
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-73681

Citation Numbers: 394 F. App'x 362

Judges: Hawkins, Leavy, Thomas

Filed Date: 8/31/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023