Eduardo Vera-Morlas v. Eric H. Holder Jr., No. 08-73601 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 24 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDUARDO ALFREDO VERAMORLAS, a.k.a. Eduardo Vera Morales, No. 08-73601 Agency No. A034-188-057 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM * v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 13, 2010 ** Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Eduardo Alfredo Vera-Morlas, a native and citizen of Ecuador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. * 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). § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, including whether a conviction qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude. See Galeana-Mendoza v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 1054, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. We disagree with Vera-Morlas contention that the BIA s order specifically limited the proceedings on remand and that the government therefore was barred from filing additional charges of removability on remand. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(e) ( At any time during the proceeding, additional or substituted charges of [removability]...may be lodged ). In addition, the doctrine of res judicata does not bar the government from filing additional charges of removability against Vera-Morlas because the BIA s remand order is not a final judgment, rendered on the merits in a separate action. See Valencia-Alvarez v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 1319, 1323-24 (9th Cir. 2006). The agency properly found Vera-Morlas removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) by determining that his petty theft and grand theft convictions are categorically crimes involving moral turpitude. See United States v. EsparzaPonce, 193 F.3d 1133, 1136-37 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that petty theft constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude); see also Rashtabadi v. INS, 23 F.3d 1562, 1568 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that grand theft is a crime involving moral turpitude). 2 08-73601 Vera-Morlas remaining contentions are unavailing. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 08-73601
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
