Ignacio Galvan-Hernandez v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 10-70118 (9th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED JAN 19 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IGNACIO GALVAN-HERNANDEZ, AKA Ignacio Galvan, No. 10-70118 Agency No. A090-528-740 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted January 10, 2011 San Francisco, California Before: HUG, SCHROEDER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Galvan-Hernandez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals decision finding him removable because his conviction for attempted kidnapping, pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-1001 and 13-1304, qualifies as a * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. crime of violence, and hence, an aggravated felony, as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F), (U). We review de novo whether a criminal conviction is a crime of violence and therefore an aggravated felony rendering an alien removable. Covarrubias Teposte v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1094, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). The Board of Immigration Appeals properly determined that attempted kidnapping under the Arizona statutes is categorically a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C § 16(b) because it involves a substantial risk that physical force may be used in the course of committing the offense. See United States v. Williams, 110 F.3d 50, 52 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that kidnapping involves a serious potential risk of physical injury to the kidnapped person. ) (citing cases) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). Once a determination is made that an alien was convicted of an aggravated felony, we lack jurisdiction to conduct any further review of the Board of Immigration Appeals decision. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 946 (9th Cir. 2007). PETITION DISMISSED. 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.