Jose Mauricio Salazar- Carranza, a.k.a. Joe Salazar, Jr. 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOSE MAURICIO SALAZAR-
CARRANZA, a.k.a. Joe Salazar, Jr.,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72395
Agency No. A023-075-675
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Jose Mauricio Salazar-Carranza, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, and for
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-72395 2
substantial evidence factual findings. Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir.
2009). We deny the petition for review.
Salazar-Carranza’s contention that the BIA impermissibly exceeded its
review authority in concluding that he was removable as an aggravated felon fails
because the determination as to whether a conviction is an aggravated felony is a
question of law the BIA is permitted by regulation to review de novo. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.1(d)(3)(ii).
The BIA did not err in concluding that Salazar-Carranza was removable as
an aggravated felon because his 2003 conviction for second degree robbery under
Cal. Penal Code §§ 211 and 212.5(c) is categorically a crime of violence under
18 U.S.C. § 16, and he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of at least one
year. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F); United States v. McDougherty, 920 F.2d 569,
573 (9th Cir. 1990) (“[R]obbery under California law is . . . by definition a crime
of violence.”).
The BIA did not err in relying in part on the Attorney General’s decision in
Matter of J-F-F-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 912 (A.G. 2006), to deny Salazar-Carranza’s
application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(g) (“decisions of the Attorney General . . . shall serve as
precedents in all proceedings involving the same issue or issues”). Substantial

-- 2 of 3 --

08-72395 3
evidence supports the BIA’s denial of deferral of removal under CAT because
Salazar-Carranza failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he will be
tortured if removed to El Salvador. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049,
1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --