Opinion
Argued and Submitted June 6, 2001.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Alien appealed from decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying a continuance to allow the alien to seek expungement of state court convictions. The Court of Appeals held that the BIA could properly ignore expungement of alien's convictions under state rehabilitative statute for immigration purposes, and thus, the Board's denial of the continuance did not deny the alien due process even though he eventually obtained expungement.
Affirmed.
Page 555.
Appeal from a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Before KOZINSKI and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and WHYTE, District Judge.
The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Hernandez argues that he was denied due process when the immigration judge, acting on Hernandez's application for suspension of deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a), denied him a continuance so he could seek expungement of two state criminal convictions for providing false identification to a police officer.
We affirm the Board's finding that Hernandez was not prejudiced by the denial. Although Hernandez eventually obtained expungement of his convictions under California's rehabilitative statute, Cal.Penal Code § 1203.4, the Board held that the expunged convictions could nevertheless serve as the ground for denying Hernandez suspension of deportation. We have upheld the Board's interpretation of the term "conviction" in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A) as allowing the INS to ignore state rehabilitative expungements for immigration purposes. Murillo-Espinoza v. INS, 261 F.3d 771, 774 (9th Cir.2001).
AFFIRMED.