Eugenia Paris, aka Jenny Paris 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 finds this case 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
EUGENIA PARIS, aka Jenny Paris,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70799
Agency No. A026-823-395
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2009**
San Francisco, California
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Eugenia Paris, a citizen of Romania, petitions for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals, dismissing the appeal of an immigration judge’s
denial of her application for cancellation of removal. The BIA agreed with the IJ
that Paris was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal due to her prior
FILED
FEB 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
convictions for receipt of a stolen vehicle, in violation of California Penal Code
section 496d(a), and for receiving stolen property, in violation of California Penal
Code section 496(a). The BIA also held that Paris’s theft convictions constituted
crimes involving moral turpitude. We have jurisdiction over these issues. See
Vizcarra-Ayala v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 870, 872 (9th Cir. 2008) (whether an offense
is an aggravated felony for the purposes of the INA is a question of law and
therefore not subject to statutory jurisdictional constraints); Tall v. Mukasey, 517
F.3d 1115, 1118 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[W]e have jurisdiction to determine our
jurisdiction—that is, to determine whether Tall’s convictions qualify as crimes
involving moral turpitude.”).
Paris argues that her convictions under the two statutes do not constitute
aggravated felonies because both statutes encompass “accessory after the fact”
liabilities. These arguments were considered and rejected in our recent decisions
in Verdugo-Gonzalez v. Holder, 581 F.3d 1059, 1061 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that
a conviction under section 496(a) of the California Penal Code constitutes an
aggravated felony), and Alvarez-Reynaga v. Holder, ___F.3d___, 2010 WL
572737 at *2 (9th Cir. Feb. 19, 2010) (holding that a conviction under section
496d(a) of the California Penal Code constitutes an aggravated felony).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Paris’s due process claims also fail as there are no indications that the IJ
proceedings were fundamentally unfair and that Paris was prejudiced as a result.
See Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (“The BIA’s
decision will be reversed on due process grounds if (1) the proceeding was so
fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting his
case, and (2) the alien demonstrates prejudice, which means that the outcome of the
proceeding may have been affected by the alleged violation.”) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted).
PETITION DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --