Pedro Lara-Sandoval 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
PEDRO LARA-SANDOVAL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71620
Agency No. A077-332-394
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Pedro Lara-Sandoval, 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 denial of his applications for adjustment of status and
cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
JAN 06 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-71620 2
de novo questions of law, Rice v. Holder, 597 F.3d 952, 954-55 (9th Cir. 2010),
and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Lara-Sandoval does not contest the agency’s determination that his
conviction under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11550(a) constitutes a violation of a
law “relating to a controlled substance.” See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II),
1227(a)(2)(B)(i). He therefore is ineligible for adjustment of status, see id. §
1255(a)(2), and cancellation of removal, see id. § 1229b(b)(1)(C).
Lara-Sandoval’s conviction is final for purposes of immigration review, see
Morales-Alvarado v. INS, 655 F.2d 172, 175 (9th Cir. 1981) (a conviction subject
to collateral attack is final for immigration purposes), and we may not reexamine
the conviction here, see Urbina-Mauricio v. INS, 989 F.2d 1085, 1089 (9th Cir.
1993) (a conviction cannot be collaterally attacked in an immigration proceeding).
Because his conviction has not been expunged pursuant to a state rehabilitative
statute, he would not qualify for benefits under the Federal First Offender Act. See
Chavez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1284, 1290-92 (9th Cir. 2004).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Lara-Sandoval’s voluntary departure claim
because he did not exhaust this claim before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --