JESUS CHAVEZ-CHAVEZ, AKA Jesus Chavez v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESUS CHAVEZ-CHAVEZ, AKA Jesus
Chavez,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72721
Agency No. A076-357-604
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted April 9, 2018
San Francisco, California
Before: D.W. NELSON, KLEINFELD, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Jesus Chavez-Chavez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) decision upholding the Immigration
Judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal based on his guilty pleas to illicit trafficking in and
transportation of a controlled substance. We review de novo questions of law.
FILED
APR 27 2018
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.

-- 1 of 3 --

Cabantac v. Holder, 736 F.3d 787, 792 (9th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
Chavez-Chavez is removable for an offense related to a controlled substance
because the abstract of judgment, read alongside the criminal complaints,
establishes that his convictions under sections 11378 and 11379 of the California
Health and Safety Code involved methamphetamine. See 8 U.S.C. §
1227(a)(2)(B)(i); United States v. Torre-Jimenez, 771 F.3d 1163, 1168 (9th Cir.
2014) (“Where the [abstract of judgment] specifies that a defendant pleaded guilty
to a particular count of a criminal complaint, the court may consider the facts
alleged in the complaint.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted));
Cabantac, 736 F.3d at 793–94 (“[W]here, as here, the abstract of judgment . . .
specifies that a defendant pleaded guilty to a particular count of the criminal
complaint . . . , we can consider the facts alleged in that count.”).
Because the removability determination under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) is
dispositive, we need not reach Chavez-Chavez’s contentions regarding
removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review Chavez-Chavez’s unexhausted
contention that the abstract of judgment is wholly unreliable because it contains
2

-- 2 of 3 --

inaccurate personal information. Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.
2010) (citation omitted). We therefore dismiss that claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3

-- 3 of 3 --