Marcelo Bautista-Meraz v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARCELO BAUTISTA-MERAZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-940
Agency No. A208-924-451
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 28, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: W. FLETCHER, NGUYEN, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Marcelo Bautista-Meraz (“Bautista-Meraz” or “Petitioner”) seeks
judicial review of his final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA affirmed the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
FILED
NOV 3 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

holding that Bautista-Meraz’s conviction for concealing the occurrence of an event
that affected a person’s right to insurance benefits under Cal. Penal Code §
550(b)(3) constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”) or an aggravated
felony offense involving fraud or deceit that resulted in a loss to the victim
exceeding $10,000. Accordingly, the BIA held that Bautista-Meraz was statutorily
ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1182. The BIA also denied
the Petitioner’s motion to remand the case to allow the IJ to consider
administrative closure.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions
of law, including whether the Petitioner’s conviction under a state criminal statute
qualifies as a CIMT or an aggravated felony. See Jauregui-Cardenas v. Barr, 946
F.3d 1116, 1118 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition.
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico, who entered the United States in
2004. Petitioner lives with his wife and his three children, all of whom are U.S.
citizens. On February 25, 2016, Bautista-Meraz pleaded guilty to concealing the
occurrence of an event that affected a person’s right to insurance benefits in
violation of Cal. Penal Code § 550(b)(3).
Under established California law, § 550(b)(3) necessarily includes a specific
intent to commit a fraud. People v. Blick, 153 Cal. App. 4th 759, 772 (Cal. Ct.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

App. 2007); see also People v. Kurtenbach, 204 Cal. App. 4th 1264, 1283 (Cal. Ct.
App. 2012). If the full range of conduct encompassed by the statute constitutes a
CIMT, the conviction qualifies as a CIMT. Barbosa v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053, 1057-
58 (9th Cir. 2019). Since fraud offenses are CIMTs, see Jordan v. De George, 341
U.S. 223, 227 (1951), § 550(b)(3) is categorically a CIMT. Petitioner is thus
ineligible for cancellation of removal.
PETITION DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --