Singh H. Sohal-Kulvinder 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SINGH H. SOHAL-KULVINDER,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72554
Agency No. A092-954-169
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Singh H. Sohal-Kulvinder, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
FILED
SEP 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-72554 2
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324
F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The IJ properly determined that Sohal-Kulvinder was removable under
8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) for having been convicted of two crimes involving
moral turpitude not arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct. See
Cuevas-Gaspar v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 1013, 1020 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[C]rimes of
theft or larceny are crimes involving moral turpitude.”). A waiver for this ground
of removability was unavailable to Sohal-Kulvinder. See Aguilar-Ramos v.
Holder, 594 F.3d 701, 706 (9th Cir. 2010); Garcia-Jimenez v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d
1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2007) (an alien cannot receive both cancellation of removal
and § 212(c) relief).
Sohal-Kulvinder’s remaining contention is not persuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --