United States v. 2020-10-29 | 17-70229 | JORGE RODRIGUEZ REA V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JORGE RODRIGUEZ REA,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 17-70229

Agency No. A091-719-640

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted October 26, 2020
**

Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Jorge Rodriguez Rea, 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 voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Cabantac v. Holder,
736 F.3d 787, 792 (9th Cir. 2013). We deny the petition for review.

*
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 2020

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

2 17-70229
The agency did not err in concluding that California Health and Safety Code
(“CHSC”) § 11377(a) is divisible and in applying the modified categorical
approach to determine that Rodriguez Rea’s conviction is an offense relating to a
controlled substance that makes him ineligible for voluntary departure. See
8 U.S.C. §§ 1229c(b)(1)(B), 1101(f)(3), 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II); Coronado v. Holder,
759 F.3d 977, 984-85 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that CHSC § 11377(a) is divisible
and subject to the modified categorical approach); United States v. Martinez-
Lopez, 864 F.3d 1034, 1040-41 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (holding that a similar
California controlled substance statute is divisible with respect to the listed
substances). Rodriguez Rea asks us to reconsider Martinez-Lopez, but we are
bound by that decision given the absence of any “intervening higher authority” that
is “clearly irreconcilable” with it. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 892-93
(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
We deny Rodriguez Rea’s request to remand in light of United States v.
Rodriguez-Gamboa, 972 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2020).
On May 17, 2017, the court granted a stay of removal. The stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.