Ruben Juarez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RUBEN JUAREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72967
Agency No. A078-440-820
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Ruben Juarez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion to reconsider, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-72967 2
Cir. 2005), and review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims, Kahn v.
Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA correctly concluded that Juarez’s 2003 conviction for violating Cal.
Penal Code § 484(a) is a crime involving moral turpitude. See Castillo-Cruz v.
Holder, 581 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[W]e have consistently held that
acts of petty theft constitute crimes of moral turpitude.”). Juarez has waived any
challenge to the BIA’s determination that his 1990 conviction for violating Cal.
Penal Code § 273.5(a) is also a crime involving moral turpitude. Martinez-Serrano
v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 125960 (9th Cir. 1996). Because Juarez was convicted of
more than one crime involving moral turpitude, he was ineligible for the “petty
offense” exception to the moral turpitude ground of inadmissibility, see 8 U.S.C. §
1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II), and is therefore ineligible for cancellation of removal, see
8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C).
Juarez’s retroactivity contention fails because the conviction that rendered
him inadmissable was incurred after the enactment of Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. See Saravia-Paguada v. Gonzales, 488
F.3d 1122, 1132-34 (9th Cir. 2007) (an alien must demonstrate some affirmative
reliance on a previously available immigration benefit to show impermissible
retroactivity).

-- 2 of 3 --

07-72967 3
The BIA accordingly acted within its discretion in denying Juarez’s motion
to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the
BIA’s prior decision affirming the immigration judge’s decision denying
cancellation of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --