Pedro Lara-Sandoval v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 09-71620 (9th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED JAN 06 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PEDRO LARA-SANDOVAL, Petitioner, No. 09-71620 Agency No. A077-332-394 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 14, 2010 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Pedro Lara-Sandoval, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s denial of his applications for adjustment of status and cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review * 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). de novo questions of law, Rice v. Holder, 597 F.3d 952, 954-55 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Lara-Sandoval does not contest the agency s determination that his conviction under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11550(a) constitutes a violation of a law relating to a controlled substance. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). He therefore is ineligible for adjustment of status, see id. § 1255(a)(2), and cancellation of removal, see id. § 1229b(b)(1)(C). Lara-Sandoval s conviction is final for purposes of immigration review, see Morales-Alvarado v. INS, 655 F.2d 172, 175 (9th Cir. 1981) (a conviction subject to collateral attack is final for immigration purposes), and we may not reexamine the conviction here, see Urbina-Mauricio v. INS, 989 F.2d 1085, 1089 (9th Cir. 1993) (a conviction cannot be collaterally attacked in an immigration proceeding). Because his conviction has not been expunged pursuant to a state rehabilitative statute, he would not qualify for benefits under the Federal First Offender Act. See Chavez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1284, 1290-92 (9th Cir. 2004). We lack jurisdiction to consider Lara-Sandoval s voluntary departure claim because he did not exhaust this claim before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part. 2 09-71620
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.
