Vijendra Kumar Singh 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
VIJENDRA KUMAR SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71682
Agency No. A024-944-946
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Vijendra Kumar Singh, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review de novo whether a particular conviction constitutes an aggravated
FILED
JAN 19 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-71682 2
felony, Randhawa v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 2002), and we deny
the petition for review.
The agency properly determined that Singh’s conviction under California
Penal Code § 496(a), for which he was sentenced to one year imprisonment,
constituted an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G). See Verdugo-
Gonzalez v. Holder, 581 F.3d 1059, 1062 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The full range of
conduct proscribed by [section 496(a)] falls within the generic definition of a theft
offense.”); see also Alvarez-Reynaga v. Holder, 596 F.3d 534 (9th Cir. 2010).
Singh 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).
In light of our disposition, we do not address Singh’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --