United States v. 2020-06-08 | 16-70072 | LUIS GONZALEZ-FLORES V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS ANTONIO GONZALEZ-FLORES,
AKA Antonio Luis Gonzales, AKA Antonio
Gonzalez, AKA Luis Antonio Gonzalez,
AKA Luis Antonio Gonzolez,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 16-70072

Agency No. A092-620-418

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 2, 2020
**

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Luis Antonio Gonzalez-Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal.

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED

JUN 8 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 16-70072
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law.
Latter-Singh v. Holder, 668 F.3d 1156, 1159 (9th Cir. 2012). We deny the petition
for review.
The agency did not err in concluding that Matter of Leal, 26 I. & N. Dec. 20
(BIA 2012), which held that a conviction for felony endangerment under Arizona
Revised Statutes § 13-1201 is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude,
applies retroactively. See Olivas-Motta v. Whitaker, 910 F.3d 1271, 1276-79 (9th
Cir. 2018) (concluding that Matter of Leal did not represent a change in the law
and therefore applies retroactively).
We deny Gonzalez-Flores’s motion to terminate or remand where his
contention that the agency lacked jurisdiction is foreclosed by Karingithi v.
Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-62 (9th Cir. 2019) (notice to appear need not
include time and date of hearing to vest jurisdiction in the immigration court).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.