Jose Manuel Zavala-Virelas v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MANUEL ZAVALA-VIRELAS,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73641
Agency No. A076-743-211
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Jose Manuel Zavala-Virelas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision ordering him removed. 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
DEC 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-73641
Mandujano-Real v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 585, 588 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Zavala-Virelas’ contention that the BIA erred in applying the categorical
approach to analyze his conviction is not supported, where the BIA did not state
that his conviction is categorically a crime of violence, and cited to United States v.
Cabrera-Perez, 751 F.3d 1000, 1005-07 (9th Cir. 2014), which applied the
modified categorical approach to hold that a conviction under Arizona Revised
Statutes §§ 13-1203(A)(2) and 13-1204(A)(2) is a crime of violence. The BIA
properly determined that Zavala-Virelas’ conviction for aggravated assault was
under Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 13-1203(A)(2) and 13-1204(A)(2), and that it is
an aggravated felony crime of violence that makes him removable under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). See Cabrera-Perez, 751 F.3d at 1005-07.
We lack jurisdiction to review Zavala-Virelas’ unexhausted contentions
regarding service anomalies with the notice to appear, errors in the allegations in
the notice to appear, the divisibility of Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 13-1203 and
13-1204, the IJ’s application of the modified categorical approach, and
discrepancies between the plea agreement and the sentencing report in his record
of conviction. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (due
process claims based on procedural errors that could have been corrected by the
agency must be exhausted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --