Romelius A. Ramiro 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ROMELIUS A. RAMIRO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72815
Agency No. A044-812-698
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Romelius A. Ramiro, a native and citizen of the Philippines, 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 questions of law and claims of due process violations.
FILED
MAY 17 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-72815 2
Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1189, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). We
deny the petition for review.
Ramiro does not dispute that he was convicted of distributing
methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 860(a), 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C),
and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and has not established that this conviction is invalid or not
final for immigration purposes. See Planes v. Holder, 652 F.3d 991, 996 (9th Cir.
2011) (a conviction is final for immigration purposes where a judgment of guilt has
been entered and a punishment imposed, even where a direct appeal or collateral
attack is pending). Accordingly, the agency properly determined that he is
removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (aggravated felony based on illicit
trafficking in a controlled substance) and 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) (controlled
substance violation).
It follows that the agency did not commit legal error or deny Ramiro due
process in denying his motion to terminate removal proceedings. See Lata v. INS,
204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a
due process claim).
The agency properly denied Ramiro’s request for continuance for failure to
show good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Malilia v. Holder, 632 F.3d 598, 604
(9th Cir. 2011).

-- 2 of 3 --

10-72815 3
We deny Ramiro’s motion to hold his case in abeyance pending the results
of his appeal of the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate
his sentence.
Ramiro’s remaining contentions lack merit.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --