Baljit Singh Dhanota 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BALJIT SINGH DHANOTA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-75978
Agency No. A036-872-284
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Baljit Singh Dhanota seeks review of a decision by the Board of
Immigration Appeals that held that his state felony conviction for possession of
methamphetamine with intent to sell, in violation of California Health and Safety
Code § 11378, was a “drug trafficking crime” which constitutes an “aggravated
FILED
APR 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

felony” under federal law, rendering him statutorily ineligible for cancellation of
removal. Dhanota argues that “drug trafficking crime,” as defined by 8 U.S.C. §
1101(a)(43)(B), requires the use of a firearm and thus the state criminal statute,
which has no such element, is broader than the federal statute. He relies in
particular on the reference in § 1101(a)(43)(B) to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) as a whole,
arguing that because § 1101(a)(43)(B) fails to contain a more precise reference to §
924(c)(2), Congress intended to incorporate all subsections of § 924(c) in the
definition of “drug trafficking crime.” We rejected exactly this argument in our
recent decision in Lopez-Jacuinde v. Holder, No. 07-72046, __F.3d __ (9th Cir.
2010).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --