ANTHONY ELISEO V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 10-71233 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 07 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANTHONY LUNA ELISEO, Petitioner, No. 10-71233 Agency No. A075-475-581 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 5, 2012 ** Pasadena, California Before: PREGERSON, GOULD, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Anthony Luna Eliseo ( Eliseo ), a native and citizen of the Philippines, and a legal permanent resident of the United States, petitions for review of the Board of * 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). Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order finding removability. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. Eliseo s conviction for violating California Health and Safety Code § 11378 is an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B); see Cazarez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 905, 919 (9th Cir. 2004) (a state drug offense is an aggravated felony for immigration purposes if it contains a trafficking element). Contrary to Eliseo s contention, the record of conviction namely the admission to the charges alleged by the Department of Homeland Security established that Eliseo was convicted of § 11378, possession for sale of a controlled substance, to wit methamphetamine. See Pagayon v. Holder, Nos.07-74047, 07-75129, 2011 WL 6091276, *4 (9th Cir. Dec. 8, 2011) (holding that an alien s concession of removability or admission of facts establishing removability, if accepted by the IJ completely relieves the government of the burden of producing evidence ). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. PETITION FOR REVIEW 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.