RICARDO PALOS-MARQUEZ V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-73799 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 10 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS RICARDO IVAN PALOS-MARQUEZ, No. 11-73799 Agency No. A074-419-643 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 6, 2015** Pasadena, California Before: REINHARDT, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Ricardo Palos-Marquez petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals that he is removable because his conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) for knowingly transporting undocumented persons is an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(N). We dismiss the petition. * 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). 1. The phrase “relating to alien smuggling” in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(N) is descriptive, rather than limiting, and offenses listed in that provision are categorically aggravated felonies, except for certain first-time offenses involving family members. See Castro-Espinosa v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1130, 1131-32 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Galindo-Gallegos, 244 F.3d 728, 733-34 (9th Cir.), amended on other grounds by 255 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2001). Section 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) is listed in § 1101(a)(43)(N). Palos-Marquez’s conviction was not for a first-time offense involving a family member, and he therefore was convicted of an aggravated felony. 2. Because Palos-Marquez was convicted of an aggravated felony, we lack jurisdiction over this petition for review. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), 1252(a)(2)(C); see Castro-Espinosa, 257 F.3d at 1132. 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.