MARIO ERNESTO MORALES- SERRANO, AKA Jose Guarneros, AKA Mario Ernesto Martinez-Serrano v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIO ERNESTO MORALES-
SERRANO, AKA Jose Guarneros, AKA
Mario Ernesto Martinez-Serrano,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70343
Agency No. A088-758-058
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Mario Ernesto Morales-Serrano, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of
* 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 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-70343
law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in
part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not err in determining that Morales-Serrano’s offense under
California Health and Safety Code § 11377(a) constituted a “conviction” for
immigration purposes, where he entered a plea of guilty and the judge imposed
some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint on his liberty. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(48)(A); Reyes v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 1104, 1108 (9th Cir. 2016)
(determining that the imposition of a non-suspended fine, requirements to attend
Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, and restrictions on weapons possession and
associations with drug users amounted to “some form of punishment, penalty, or
restraint on the alien’s liberty”). Accordingly, the agency did not err in
determining Morales-Serrano is ineligible for cancellation of removal. See
8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C).
In light of this determination, we need not address Morales-Serrano’s
contentions that he is otherwise eligible for cancellation of removal, nor his
assertion that his eligibility for cancellation of removal is impacted by Pereira v.
Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538
(9th Cir. 2004) (the courts and the agency are not required to make findings on
issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results). To the extent Morales-
Serrano contends the immigration court lacked jurisdiction over his proceedings

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-70343
under Pereira, that contention 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).
We decline to follow, at Morales-Serrano’s urging, the dissent in Nunez-
Reyes v. Holder, 646 F.3d 684, 703-16 (9th Cir. 2011) (Pregerson, Cir. J.,
dissenting), where Morales-Serrano has not shown the majority decision is clearly
irreconcilable with any intervening higher authority. See Miller v. Gammie, 335
F.3d 889, 892-93 (9th Cir. 2003).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Morales-Serrano’s unexhausted contentions
that his criminal guilty plea did not meet the requirements in Padilla v. Kentucky,
559 U.S. 356 (2010), or that he is eligible for a U Visa. 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.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --