Opinion
The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Alien, who was found inadmissible due to his two convictions for petty theft, petitioned for judicial review of decision of Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding immigration judge's denial of continuance at his deportation hearing. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) alien's two convictions for petty theft were crimes of moral turpitude for purposes of Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), and (2) jurisdiction over petition for review did not exist.
Petition for review denied.
Page 763.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Before PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Martin Conde-Reyes petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") decision upholding the Immigration Judge's denial of a continuance at his deportation hearing. He does not, however, assert any due process claim. Conde-Reyes was found inadmissible by virtue of his two convictions for petty theft, which are crimes of moral turpitude for purposes of IIRIRA. United States v. Esparza-Ponce, 193 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir.1999) (holding that petty theft under California law is a crime involving moral turpitude for purposes of IIRIRA). He entered the United States in 1984, and the offenses were committed in 1987 and 1988. This court does not have jurisdiction over Conde-Reyes' petition for review under IIRIRA's transitional rule § 309(c)(4)(G) because he is an immigrant deportable for having committed two crimes of moral turpitude within five years after entry. IIRIRA § 309(c)(4)(G).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.