Oscar O. Pineda, a.k.a. Oscar Orlando Pineda 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
OSCAR O. PINEDA, a.k.a. Oscar Orlando
Pineda,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73610
Agency No. A094-203-281
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.
Oscar O. Pineda, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s removal order and denying his motion to reopen. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-73610 2
denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions. Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Pineda’s motion to reopen
because his conviction for possession of cocaine base for sale, in violation of Cal.
Health & Safety Code § 11351.5, is an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(43)(B), and he is therefore ineligible for cancellation of removal. See
8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1); Rendon v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 967, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2008).
Pineda’s contention regarding the burden of proof is not persuasive. See
8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d).
Because Pineda has not contested removability under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), we need not address his contentions regarding his removability
under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) or (II).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --