Joselito Oliveros Kholoma 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 panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSELITO OLIVEROS KHOLOMA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-72085
Agency No. A077-346-442
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Joselito Oliveros Kholoma, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Ramirez-Villalpando
FILED
JUL 06 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-72085 2
v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2011), and we deny the petition for
review.
The BIA correctly determined that Kholoma’s conviction under California
Penal Code § 487(a) constituted an aggravated felony theft offense where the
record of conviction established that Kholoma pled guilty to grand theft of
personal property. See id. at 1040-41 (relying on a complaint and an abstract of
judgment, both of which specified that the offense involved personal property, to
conclude that the petitioner’s conviction under § 487(a) qualified as a theft
offense). Kholoma is therefore removable as an aggravated felon, see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), and statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal, see 8
U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3).
We do not address Kholoma’s contention that he is not removable under 8
U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) because the BIA only affirmed the IJ’s finding of
removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). See Santiago-Rodriguez v.
Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review is limited to the grounds relied
upon by the BIA).
Kholoma’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --