Yovanni Herrera v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YOVANNI HERRERA,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-71333
Agency No. A088-360-238
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Yovanni Herrera, 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 finding him ineligible for cancellation of removal. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law.
* 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
OCT 29 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-71333
Retuta v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2010). We dismiss in part and
deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Herrera’s unexhausted contention that the
Arizona Superior Court effectively deferred entry of judgment. See Tijani v.
Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal
claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA.”).
The agency did not err in concluding that Herrera’s conviction for
possession of marijuana under Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 13-3401, 13-3405, 13-
3418, 13-604, 13-707, 13-802, 13-901.01 is a conviction for immigration purposes,
where the Arizona Superior Court entered a formal judgment of guilt. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(48)(A); Planes v. Holder, 652 F.3d 991, 995 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Section
1101(a)(48)(A) provides two different definitions of ‘conviction’ . . . Under the
first definition, a ‘conviction’ means that a court has entered ‘a formal judgment of
guilt of the alien’.”)
Accordingly, we do not reach Herrera’s contentions regarding the nature of
his sentence. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts
and agencies are not required to reach non-dispositive issues).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --