BEATRIZ RAMIREZ V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-72660 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APR 10 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS BEATRIZ CINTHYA RAMIREZ, AKA Beatriz Cinthya Reyes-Lozano, No. 11-72660 Agency No. A095-667-977 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 6, 2015** Pasadena, California Before: KLEINFELD, McKEOWN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Beatriz Cynthia Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ determination that she is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. * 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). On de novo review, we deny the petition. Latter–Singh v. Holder, 668 F.3d 1156, 1159 (9th Cir. 2012) Ramirez was convicted of grand theft under California Penal Code Section 487 and petty theft with priors under Sections 484 and 666. Convictions under California’s theft statute, whether petty or grand, are categorically crimes involving moral turpitude. Castillo-Cruz v. Holder, 581 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Esparza-Ponce, 193 F.3d 1133, 1136–37 (9th Cir. 1999). Ramirez’s multiple convictions for crimes involving moral turpitude render her ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) and 1229b(b)(1)(C). She is also ineligible for special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act because her convictions preclude her from establishing her good moral character for “10 years immediately following the commission of an act . . . constituting a ground for removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66(c)(2)-(3). DENIED.

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.