Raul U. Cuyun-Rosales 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RAUL U. CUYUN-ROSALES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73631
Agency No. A030-440-281
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2013**
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Raul U. Cuyun-Rosales, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Delgado-Hernandez v. Holder,
FILED
APR 03 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-73631 2
697 F.3d 1125, 1126 (9th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). We dismiss the petition for
review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s removal order because Cuyun-
Rosales’s conviction for kidnapping under California Penal Code § 207(a)
categorically constitutes an aggravated-felony crime of violence under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(43)(F) that renders him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (eliminating jurisdiction to review removal orders
predicated on convictions for aggravated felonies); see also Delgado-Hernandez,
697 F.3d at 1133 (“[A]n ordinary kidnapping under [California Penal Code]
§ 207(a) is a crime of violence because it results in a substantial risk of force.”).
Cuyun-Rosales contends that his offense does not categorically constitute a
crime of violence because the statute of conviction is both overbroad and missing
an element of the generic definition of kidnapping. Because this court’s case law
forecloses Cuyun-Rosales’s contentions, they are not questions of law sufficiently
colorable to invoke our jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). See Mendez-
Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2009) (“To be colorable in this
context , . . . the claim [or question] must have some possible validity.” (citation
omitted)); see also Delgado-Hernandez, 697 F.3d at 1127 (“Because [California

-- 2 of 3 --

11-73631 3
Penal Code] § 207(a) is categorically a crime of violence, we need not rely on the
modified categorical analysis.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 3 of 3 --