Jose Robles-Calvillo v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ROBLES-CALVILLO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73197
Agency No. A092-602-328
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Jose Robles-Calvillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision finding him removable and denying his application
for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUL 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-73197
review de novo questions of law. Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir.
2014). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not err in concluding that California Health and Safety Code
(“CHSC”) § 11377(a) is divisible and in applying the modified categorical
approach to its analysis of Robles-Calvillo’s conviction under the section. See id.
at 984-85 (holding that CHSC § 11377(a) is divisible and subject to the modified
categorical approach); see also United States v. Martinez-Lopez, 864 F.3d 1034,
1040-41 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (holding that a similar California controlled
substance statute is divisible with respect to the listed substances). Thus, the
agency did not err in concluding that Robles-Calvillo’s 2007 conviction under
CHSC § 11377(a) is an offense relating to a controlled substance that renders him
removable. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i).
The agency did not err in determining that Robles-Calvillo failed to establish
that his 1994 offense under CHSC § 11377(a) was not a controlled substance
violation that renders him ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. §
1229b(d)(1); Pereida v. Wilkinson, 141 S.Ct. 754, 766 (2021) (an applicant for
relief from removal cannot establish eligibility where a conviction record is
inconclusive as to which elements of a divisible statute formed the offense). Thus,
Robles-Calvillo’s cancellation of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --