JORGE RODRIGUEZ REA V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 17-70229 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 29 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JORGE RODRIGUEZ REA, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-70229 Agency No. A091-719-640 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 26, 2020** Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Jorge Rodriguez Rea, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Cabantac v. Holder, 736 F.3d 787, 792 (9th Cir. 2013). We deny the petition for review. * 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). The agency did not err in concluding that California Health and Safety Code (“CHSC”) § 11377(a) is divisible and in applying the modified categorical approach to determine that Rodriguez Rea’s conviction is an offense relating to a controlled substance that makes him ineligible for voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229c(b)(1)(B), 1101(f)(3), 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II); Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977, 984-85 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that CHSC § 11377(a) is divisible and subject to the modified categorical approach); United States v. MartinezLopez, 864 F.3d 1034, 1040-41 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (holding that a similar California controlled substance statute is divisible with respect to the listed substances). Rodriguez Rea asks us to reconsider Martinez-Lopez, but we are bound by that decision given the absence of any “intervening higher authority” that is “clearly irreconcilable” with it. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 892-93 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). We deny Rodriguez Rea’s request to remand in light of United States v. Rodriguez-Gamboa, 972 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2020). On May 17, 2017, the court granted a stay of removal. The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 17-70229

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.