JUAN CARLOS HERRERA-MAGALLANES V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 10-72053 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED AUG 04 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN CARLOS HERRERAMAGALLANES, AKA Juan Herrera, No. 10-72053 Agency No. A099-835-804 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 21, 2015** Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Juan Carlos Herrera-Magallanes, 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 decision denying his application for 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. Espino-Castillo v. Holder, 770 F.3d 861, 863 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. Herrera-Magallanes contends that his conviction for forgery under Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-2002 is divisible and is not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude. Herrera-Magallanes’ contention is foreclosed by this court’s holding in Espino-Castillo v. Holder, where this court concluded § 13-2002 “requires intent to defraud” and was not divisible because it is a “statute that proscribes only morally turpitudinous conduct.” Id. at 864-65. Accordingly, the BIA correctly determined that a conviction for forgery under § 13-2002 is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude that renders Herrera-Magallanes statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(3), 1229b(b)(1)(B). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 10-72053

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.