Carlos Marie Palafox-Reyes 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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS MARIE PALAFOX-REYES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70924
Agency No. A070-735-665
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted February 13, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, HAWKINS, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Carlos Marie Palafox-Reyes (“Palafox”), a native and citizen of
Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s order of removal. We have
FILED
MAR 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

1 Because Palafox is removable as an alien convicted of an aggravated
felony “crime of violence” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F), we decline to address
the alternative grounds for removal relied upon by the BIA.
2
jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny Palafox’s petition for
review. We address his arguments in turn.
1. The documents submitted by the Department of Homeland Security
during Palafox’s removal proceedings established that: (1) Palafox was convicted
of first-degree burglary, in violation of California Penal Code § 459, and (2)
Palafox received a term of imprisonment of at least one year for his first-degree
burglary conviction. Accordingly, the BIA did not err in finding that Palafox was
removable as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony “crime of violence” under
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F). See Kwong v. Holder, No. 04-72167, --- F.3d ----, 2011
WL 6061513, at *5 (9th Cir. Dec. 7, 2011); Lopez-Cardona v. Holder, 662 F.3d
1110, 1112 (9th Cir. 2011). 1
2. Palafox argues that the term “alien” in the Immigration and Nationality
Act does not apply to him because he considers himself to be a “national” of the
United States. Palafox’s argument is foreclosed by our precedents. See Theagene
v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir. 2005); Reyes-Alcaraz v. Ashcroft, 363
F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --