07-73671•Rodolfo Herrera Mena v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General
07-73671Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit8 de dez. de 2009
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
IH/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODOLFO HERRERA MENA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73671
Agency No. A092-878-235
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Rodolfo Herrera Mena, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
FILED
DEC 08 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
IH/Research 07-73671 2
§ 1252. We review de novo whether a particular conviction constitutes an
aggravated felony, Randhawa v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 2002),
and we deny the petition for review.
The IJ properly determined that Herrera Mena is removable as an aggravated
felon under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) because his conviction under California
Health & Safety Code § 11351 was for “illicit trafficking in a controlled
substance” as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). See Rendon v. Mukasey, 520
F.3d 967, 976 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[P]ossession of a controlled substance with the
intent to sell contains a trafficking element and is an aggravated felony.”). We
reject Herrera Mena’s contention that the record of conviction was insufficient to
establish that his conviction related to a federally controlled substance. See United
States v. Alvarez, 972 F.2d 1000, 1005-06 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other
grounds by Kawashima v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2008).
Petitioner’s remaining contentions lack merit.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.