Marisa Garcia-Villareal 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 Honorable Raner C. Collins, United States District Judge for the**
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARISA GARCIA-VILLAREAL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-76719
Agency No. A096-234-295
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted April 16, 2010
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and COLLINS, District
Judge.**
Marisa Garcia-Villareal is a native and citizen of Mexico who petitions for
review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) holding that her
California conviction for welfare fraud rendered her ineligible for cancellation of
FILED
OCT 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). She contends that she is eligible for
cancellation because § 1229b(b)(1)(C)’s reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2) does
not apply to her as an alien who was never admitted.
Garcia-Villareal’s argument is foreclosed by this court’s decision in
Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 649 (9th Cir. 2004). In Gonzalez-
Gonzalez, we rejected the argument that “crimes of domestic violence” listed in
§ 1227(a)(2) did not apply to the alien in that case because he had never been
admitted. Id. at 653. We held that § 1229b(b)(1)(C)’s reference to an alien who
“has not been convicted of an offense under section . . . 1227(a)(2)” clearly meant
a conviction “described under” that section, and therefore that an alien can be
barred from cancellation by a conviction for an offense described under §
1227(a)(2) even if the alien is not deportable under that section. Id. at 652.
We also recognized in Gonzalez-Gonzalez that Chevron deference to the
BIA would apply if § 1229b(b)(1)(C) were ambiguous. Id. at 651. Here, even if
we were to hold that § 1229b(b)(1)(C) is ambiguous insofar as it may apply to a
person seeking to qualify for the petty offense exception to a crime involving
moral turpitude under § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II), the same Chevron deference would
apply. The BIA has recently issued a published opinion holding that the petty
offense exception is irrelevant when an alien is otherwise ineligible for

-- 2 of 3 --

3
cancellation because of a conviction for a crime described under § 1227(a)(2). See
Matter of Almanza-Arenas, 24 I. & N. Dec. 771, 776 (BIA 2009). As the BIA’s
interpretation of the statute is reasonable, Garcia-Villareal’s attempt to distinguish
Gonzalez-Gonzalez as dealing with a separate provision in the deportability statute
fails.
The petition for review is DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --