Juan Solis Olvera v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Honorable Alicemarie H. Stotler, Senior United States District**
Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN SOLIS OLVERA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-72516
Agency No. A079-587-732
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted June 17, 2010
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and STOTLER , Senior**
District Judge.
Juan Solis Olvera, a native and citizen of Mexico, appeals the Board of
Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial
FILED
JUL 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
of his application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b).
Petitioner contends the BIA erred in ruling that his conviction for willfully
discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent manner rendered him statutorily
ineligible for cancellation of removal.
The BIA did not err. Aliens who commit “[c]ertain firearm offenses” cannot
obtain cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(2)(C), 1229b(b)(1)(C).
Petitioner’s conviction for willfully discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent
manner in violation of California Penal Code § 246.3 is a firearms offense that
renders him statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. See Gonzalez-
Gonzalez v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 649, 652 (9th Cir. 2004); Valerio-Ochoa v. INS,
241 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 2001). We need not consider Petitioner’s argument
that he is eligible for relief because he used a firearm for “cultural purposes.” This
claim was never presented to the BIA and we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
Petitioner also argues that this court should overrule Gonzalez-Gonzalez. A
three-judge panel cannot, however, overrule a case unless there has been some
intervening controlling authority. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 899-900
(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Petitioner has pointed to no intervening authority that
undermines our decision in Gonzalez-Gonzalez.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
The petition for review is DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --