Steven Torlone 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
STEVEN TORLONE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72809
Agency No. A014-147-674
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Steven Torlone, a native and citizen of Canada, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
FEB 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

IH/Research 07-72809 2
review de novo constitutional questions and questions of law, Becker v. Gonzales,
473 F.3d 1000, 1001 n.2 (9th Cir. 2007), and we deny the petition for review.
Torlone’s contention that the expanded aggravated felony definition
contained in section 321 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”) cannot be applied retroactively is
foreclosed. See Alvarez-Barajas v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2005).
Torlone’s aggravated felony conviction renders him ineligible for a § 212(h)
waiver. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h)(2). Torlone’s contention that he remains eligible
for a waiver of inadmissability under § 212(h) as it existed prior to the enactment
of IIRIRA is foreclosed. See Alvarez-Barajas, 418 F.3d at 1054-55 (“Congress not
only made aliens convicted of aggravated felonies ineligible for [§ 212(h)]
waivers, but expressly made this change retroactive.”).
Torlone’s contention that he is eligible for a waiver of inadmissability under
former § 212(c) is foreclosed. See Armendariz-Montoya v. Sonchik, 291 F.3d
1116, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that aliens who “pleaded not guilty and
elected a jury trial … [are] barred from seeking § 212(c) relief”).
Torlone’s due process claims are unpersuasive. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --