MANUEL EDUARDO MORALES- ROMERO, AKA Manuel Eduardo, AKA Manuel Eduardo Morales, AKA… v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANUEL EDUARDO MORALES-
ROMERO, AKA Manuel Eduardo, AKA
Manuel Eduardo Morales, AKA Manuel
Romero,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-70050
Agency No. A094-459-451
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 17, 2023**
Phoenix, Arizona
Before: IKUTA, BADE, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Manuel Morales-Romero seeks review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of a final order of removal
FILED
OCT 19 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

issued by an Immigration Judge (IJ). We have jurisdiction to consider his legal
challenge under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), and deny the petition for review.
The BIA correctly determined that section 13-3415 of the Arizona Revised
Statutes is divisible. See Romero-Millan v. Garland, 46 F.4th 1032, 1047 (9th Cir.
2022). Morales-Romero does not challenge the BIA’s application of the modified
categorical approach and determination that his conviction under section 13-
3415(A) for possession of cocaine paraphernalia matches a controlled substance
offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), thereby forfeiting any such argument.
See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1080 (9th Cir. 2013). Accordingly,
the BIA correctly determined that Morales-Romero is removable under
§ 1227(a)(2)(B)(i).1
PETITION DENIED.
1 Morales-Romero does not challenge the BIA’s determinations that he is
ineligible for cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under CAT. Nor does he challenge the BIA’s determination that the IJ
did not violate his due process rights. His failure to challenge those conclusions
constitutes forfeiture of the claims. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072,
1080 (9th Cir. 2013).
2

-- 2 of 2 --