LUIS LOPEZ GOMEZ V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, III, No. 16-73181 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 19 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUIS ANGEL LOPEZ GOMEZ, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-73181 Agency No. A092-081-887 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 12, 2018** Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Luis Angel Lopez Gomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order denying cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 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. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Cabantac v. Holder, 736 F.3d 787, 792 (9th Cir. 2013). We deny the petition for review. The agency correctly concluded that Lopez Gomez is removable and ineligible for cancellation of removal due to his conviction for an aggravated felony, where the minute order read in conjunction with the complaint shows his conviction for possession for sale of a controlled substance under California Health and Safety Code § 11351 involved cocaine. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(B), 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), 1229b(a)(3); Cabantac, 736 F.3d at 793-94 (“[W]here, as here, the . . . minute order specifies that a defendant pleaded guilty to a particular count of the criminal complaint or indictment, we can consider the facts alleged in that count.”); United States v. Torre-Jimenez, 771 F.3d 1163, 1169 (9th Cir. 2014) (the phrase “as charged in the Information (or Indictment)” is not necessary where the documents are unambiguous; finding that an abstract of judgment that stated defendant was convicted of count 1, and count 1 on the complaint specified the substance involved was cocaine, was sufficient to establish the substance involved). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 16-73181

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.