MEZA V. HOLDER, No. 07-73346 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED JUN 05 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALFREDO FIDEL MEZA, aka Alfredo Fidel Meza Chavez, No. 07-73346 Agency No. A092-774-974 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM * v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 1, 2012 ** San Francisco, California Before: W. FLETCHER,*** CALLAHAN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. * 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). *** Due to the death of Judge Pamela A. Rymer, Judge William A. Fletcher, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, was drawn to replace her. Judge Fletcher has read the briefs and reviewed the record. Petitioner Alfredo Meza is ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C), because he has been convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude, which are offenses under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I); specifically, he was convicted of a theft in violation of California Penal Code Section 484(a), and check fraud in violation of California Penal Code Section 476a. See Rusz v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 1182, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004); Burr v. INS, 350 F.2d 87, 91 92 (9th Cir. 1965). Although these convictions were subsequently expunged pursuant to state law, such expungement does not change their immigration consequences. See Murillo-Espinoza v. INS, 261 F.3d 771, 774 (9th Cir. 2001). Moreover, even if Meza qualified for a discretionary waiver of removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h), such a waiver would not erase the crimes alleged to be grounds for removability from his record for immigration purposes. See Becker v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1000, 1003 04 (9th Cir. 2007). DENIED. 2

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.