Opinion
No. 15-71697
10-19-2018
JOSE MANUEL PEREZ MORALES, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency No. A047-345-446 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 16, 2018 San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, GRABER, Circuit Judge, and LASNIK, District Judge.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation. --------
Petitioner Jose Manuel Perez Morales is a native and citizen of Mexico. He was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident but, thereafter, pleaded guilty to (1) encouraging or inducing an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, and (2) aiding or abetting, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (v)(II). The Board of Immigration Appeals ruled that Petitioner is removable, as charged, under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), because he stands convicted of an aggravated felony. We dismiss the petition seeking review of that decision.
We lack jurisdiction over a petition for review from a final order of removal against a non-citizen who is removable for having committed an aggravated felony. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). But we have jurisdiction to examine our jurisdiction, including the question, which we review de novo, whether a particular offense is an aggravated felony that strips us of jurisdiction. Murillo-Prado v. Holder, 735 F.3d 1152, 1155-56 (9th Cir. 2013).
The relevant statute categorically labels Petitioner's crimes of conviction aggravated felonies:
The term "aggravated felony" means-8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(N). That subsection also provides an exception that is not relevant here. Petitioner's argument that the descriptive parenthetical phrase renders the definition overbroad is unavailing. Congress clearly expressed that, with one inapplicable exception, all offenses defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)—which includes both of Petitioner's convictions—are aggravated felonies. Indeed, we rejected Petitioner's arguments expressly in Castro-Espinosa v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1130, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2001) (order) (internal quotation marks omitted): "[U]nder a straightforward reading of section 1101(a)(43)(N), the parenthetical merely describes and does not limit" the specified predicate offenses that are "included in section 1324(a)(1)(A)." See also United States v. Guzman-Mata, 579 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009) ("We hold that a conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1) is categorically an "alien smuggling offense" under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A).") .
. . . .
(N) an offense described in paragraph (1)(A) or (2) of section 1324(a) of this title (relating to alien smuggling) . . . .
Petition DISMISSED.