ISMAEL SOLIS-VILLEDA, AKA Ismael Solis, AKA Ismael Villeda Solis v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ISMAEL SOLIS-VILLEDA, AKA Ismael
Solis, AKA Ismael Villeda Solis,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-70316
Agency No. A205-711-939
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Ismael Solis-Villeda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision pretermitting his applications for cancellation
of removal and adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
* 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
DEC 17 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-70316
We review de novo questions of law. Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166
(9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not err in reopening the record of proceedings, where in petition
No. 15-70696, this court granted the government’s motion to remand, in part, to
further develop the record concerning Solis-Villeda’s conviction, and Solis-Villeda
did not petition for rehearing of that decision. See Olivas-Motta v. Whitaker, 910
F.3d 1271, 1280 (9th Cir. 2018) (“an administrative agency may not deviate from a
supervising court’s remand order”).
The BIA did not err in concluding that California Health and Safety Code
(“CHSC”) § 11377(a) is divisible and in applying the modified categorial approach
to determine that Solis-Villeda’s conviction is a controlled substance offense that
renders him ineligible for cancellation of removal and adjustment of status. See
8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), 1229b(b)(1)(C), 1255(i)(2)(A); Coronado v.
Holder, 759 F.3d 977, 984-85 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding CHSC § 11377(a) is
divisible with regard to substance and subject to the modified categorical
approach).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --