Filed: May 25, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 25 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WENCESLAO CHALE MOO, AKA Chale No. 14-71906 Wenceslac, Agency No. A92-403-968 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 18, 2018** San Francisco, California Before: N.R. SMITH and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and LYNN,*** Chief District Jud
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 25 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WENCESLAO CHALE MOO, AKA Chale No. 14-71906 Wenceslac, Agency No. A92-403-968 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 18, 2018** San Francisco, California Before: N.R. SMITH and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and LYNN,*** Chief District Judg..
More
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 25 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WENCESLAO CHALE MOO, AKA Chale No. 14-71906
Wenceslac,
Agency No. A92-403-968
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 18, 2018**
San Francisco, California
Before: N.R. SMITH and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and LYNN,*** Chief
District Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Barbara M. G. Lynn, Chief United States District
Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied Petitioner Wenceslao
Chale Moo’s motion to reconsider. Petitioner seeks review of the denial, in which
the BIA found that Petitioner was ineligible for a discretionary waiver of
deportation under the former Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(c). We
review BIA decisions on motions to reconsider for abuse of discretion and reverse
only if the BIA acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law. Mohammed v.
Gonzales,
400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1252.
We deny the petition because the BIA did not err in finding that Petitioner is
ineligible for § 212(c) relief. An alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony
after April 24, 1996, and whose deportation proceedings begin after this date, is
ineligible for § 212(c) relief. See Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of
1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, § 440(d), 110 Stat. 1214, 1277 (1996). On February 5,
1997, Petitioner entered a plea of no contest to a charge of assault with a deadly
weapon causing great bodily injury, which is an aggravated felony. See United
States v. Calvillo-Palacios,
860 F.3d 1285, 1292 (9th Cir. 2017). His deportation
proceedings commenced in March 1998. Accordingly, the BIA did not act
arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law. See also Alvarez-Barajas v. Gonzales,
418 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION DENIED.
2