Andrew Sudesh Narayan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ANDREW SUDESH NARAYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72601
Agency No. A035-213-785
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Andrew Sudesh Narayan, a native and citizen of the United Kingdom,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order denying Narayan’s motion to
terminate. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing de novo
FILED
DEC 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-72601 2
questions of law, Morales-Garcia v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir. 2009),
we deny the petition for review.
The agency properly concluded that Narayan’s conviction under
section 273.5(a) of the California Penal Code constitutes a conviction for a crime
involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”) because a modified categorical analysis of the
record of conviction establishes that Narayan was convicted of inflicting corporal
injury upon his spouse. See United States v. Leal-Vega, 680 F.3d 1160, 1168-69
(9th Cir. 2012) (holding that a criminal complaint, read together with other
judicially noticeable documents, may be considered under the modified categorical
analysis if no ambiguity exists in the record of conviction to conclude that the
defendant was convicted of a generic federal offense); Morales-Garcia, 567 F.3d
at 1065 (affirming that spousal abuse constitutes a CIMT).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --