LAW.coLAW.co

GOMEZ ORTIZ v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-09-21No. No. 13-74408

Summary

Holding. The court denied the petition for review, affirming the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of Gomez-Ortiz's appeal and the immigration judge's denial of cancellation of removal.

Jose Alberto Gomez-Ortiz, a Mexican citizen, sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of his appeal challenging an immigration judge's denial of his application for cancellation of removal. The court examined whether Gomez-Ortiz's conviction records clearly established that he had been convicted under California Health & Safety Code Section 11550(a), a controlled substance offense that renders an individual deportable. Using the modified categorical approach—which allows courts to examine charging documents and plea records to determine the specific offense of conviction—the court found that Gomez-Ortiz's conviction documents unambiguously showed a Section 11550(a) conviction.

Because Section 11550(a) constitutes a controlled substance offense under federal immigration law, Gomez-Ortiz did not qualify for cancellation of removal. The immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals therefore properly denied his relief application. The court rejected Gomez-Ortiz's request for oral argument and upheld the removal order, though the stay of removal remains in effect pending issuance of the court's mandate.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

  • Whether conviction under California Health & Safety Code Section 11550(a) constitutes a controlled substance offense rendering applicant ineligible for cancellation of removal
  • Application of the modified categorical approach to determine the specific offense of conviction from court documents
  • Eligibility for cancellation of removal under federal immigration law

Procedural posture

Gomez-Ortiz petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's denial of his cancellation of removal application.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Alberto Gomez-Ortiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Pinto v. Holder, 648 F.3d 976, 986 (9th Cir. 2011) (BIA order denying relief from removal, but remanding for voluntary departure proceedings, is a final order of removal). We review de novo questions of law. Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

The agency properly denied cancellation of removal, where the conviction documents unambiguously indicate that Gomez-Ortiz was convicted under California Health & Safety Code (“CHSC”) Section 11550(a), which is a controlled substance offense. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), 1229b(b)(1)(C); Tejeda v. Barr, 960 F.3d 1184, 1186 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding CHSC § 11550(a) is divisible with regard to substance and subject to the modified categorical approach); Cabantac v. Holder, 736 F.3d 787, 793-94 (9th Cir. 2013) (Under the modified categorical approach, where “the abstract of judgment or minute order specifies that a defendant pleaded guilty to a particular count of the criminal complaint or indictment, we can consider the facts alleged in that count.”).

Gomez-Ortizs request for oral argument, raised in his opening brief, is denied.

The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.