JESUS CHAVEZ-CHAVEZ V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 14-72721 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 27 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JESUS CHAVEZ-CHAVEZ, AKA Jesus Chavez, No. 14-72721 Agency No. A076-357-604 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 9, 2018 San Francisco, California Before: D.W. NELSON, KLEINFELD, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Jesus Chavez-Chavez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) decision upholding the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal based on his guilty pleas to illicit trafficking in and transportation of a controlled substance. We review de novo questions of law. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Cabantac v. Holder, 736 F.3d 787, 792 (9th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Chavez-Chavez is removable for an offense related to a controlled substance because the abstract of judgment, read alongside the criminal complaints, establishes that his convictions under sections 11378 and 11379 of the California Health and Safety Code involved methamphetamine. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i); United States v. Torre-Jimenez, 771 F.3d 1163, 1168 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Where the [abstract of judgment] specifies that a defendant pleaded guilty to a particular count of a criminal complaint, the court may consider the facts alleged in the complaint.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Cabantac, 736 F.3d at 793–94 (“[W]here, as here, the abstract of judgment . . . specifies that a defendant pleaded guilty to a particular count of the criminal complaint . . . , we can consider the facts alleged in that count.”). Because the removability determination under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) is dispositive, we need not reach Chavez-Chavez’s contentions regarding removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review Chavez-Chavez’s unexhausted contention that the abstract of judgment is wholly unreliable because it contains 2 inaccurate personal information. Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). We therefore dismiss that claim. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3
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.
