Juan Carrillo Cruz 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JUAN CARRILLO CRUZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73147
Agency No. A044-334-442
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 27, 2011**
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Juan Carrillo Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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.
FILED
OCT 6 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-73147 2
We review de novo questions of law, S-Yong v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1028, 1034 (9th
Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
Carrillo Cruz correctly contends that his conviction under California Health
& Safety Code § 11351, for possession of a controlled substance for sale, is not
categorically a controlled substance offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), or a
drug trafficking aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). See S-Yong,
600 F.3d at 1034 (“We have previously found that California law regulates the
possession and sale of many substances that are not regulated by the [federal
Controlled Substances Act]”).
Carrillo Cruz, however, provides no coherent argument in his opening brief
as to how the conviction documents are insufficient to demonstrate that his
conviction constitutes a removable controlled substance offense, and a drug
trafficking aggravated felony, under the “modified categorical approach.” See id.
at 1035. Accordingly, we deem the issue waived and deny the petition for review.
See San Diego Unified Port Dist. v. Gianturco, 651 F.2d 1306, 1319 n.36 (9th Cir.
1981) (deeming issue waived where briefing contained little more than an assertion
of error and court was “left to guess precisely what [appellants] meant to argue”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --