Jose Luis Maldonado-Escobar 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).
IH/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LUIS MALDONADO-ESCOBAR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-73539
Agency No. A074-418-634
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Jose Luis Maldonado-Escobar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s order denying his application for cancellation of removal. We
FILED
DEC 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

IH/Research 06-73539 2
have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of
law, Sandoval-Lua v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 1121, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2007), and we
deny the petition for review.
Maldonado-Escobar does not challenge the agency’s conclusion that his
2002 conviction for possession of a controlled substance in violation of California
Health & Safety Code § 11377(a) rendered him inadmissible pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). As this conviction occurred before Maldonado-Escobar had
acquired seven years of continuous residence, we agree with the agency’s
conclusion that he is not statutorily eligible for cancellation of removal. See 8
U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(2), (d)(1). Because our conclusion is dispositive of Maldonado-
Escobar’s eligibility for cancellation of removal, we do not consider his contention
regarding his 2001 conviction.
We cannot consider the new evidence Maldonado-Escobar submitted with
his motion to remand as our review is limited to the administrative record. See 8
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A). We therefore deny Maldonado-Escobar’s motion to
remand. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1); Altawil v. INS, 179 F.3d 791, 792-93 (9th Cir.
1999) (order).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --