LUIS BERNAL GOMEZ V. LORETTA LYNCH, No. 15-71326 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 20 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUIS ALONSO BERNAL GOMEZ, Petitioner, No. 15-71326 Agency No. A092-428-063 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 14, 2016** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Luis Alonso Bernal Gomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision pretermitting his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). questions of law, Lopez-Jacuinde v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1215, 1217 (9th Cir. 2010), and deny the petition for review. The agency properly concluded that Bernal Gomez’ conviction under California Health & Safety Code (“CHSC”) § 11383(c)(1) was a drug trafficking aggravated felony that rendered him ineligible for cancellation of removal. See Lopez-Jacuinde, 600 F.3d at 1217-19 (a conviction under CHSC § 11383(c)(1) is categorically a drug trafficking aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B)); 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3) (a conviction for an aggravated felony renders an applicant ineligible for cancellation of removal). Bernal Gomez contends that this court’s decision in Lopez-Jacuinde v. Holder was wrongly decided, but in the absence of an intervening Supreme Court or en banc decision, “[a] three-judge panel cannot reconsider or overrule circuit precedent.” Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 2011). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 15-71326

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.