Anaya-Ortiz

MEMORANDUM

Anaya argues that his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm under California Penal Code § 12021(a)(1) does not qualify as an “aggravated felony” conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(43)(E)(ii). We disagree.

Under the framework articulated in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 , 110 S.Ct. 2143 , 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990), the IJ and BIA did not err in determining that Anaya was convicted of all the elements of an “aggravated felony” under § 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii), and in holding he was removable under § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The state statute of conviction, California Penal Code § 12021(a)(1), qualifies as a generic federal offense of being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1), notwithstanding the fact that § 922(g)(1) includes an interstate commerce element not present in the state offense. See United States v. Castillo-Rivera, 244 F.3d 1020, 1024 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that a state crime of conviction need not have the interstate commerce element contained in 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1) to qualify as an aggravated felony under § 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii)).

Anaya did not raise before the BIA (or in his brief to this court) any argument under…