Rodas

Rodas v. Ashcroft

Good Law
84 F. App'x 872
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 18, 2003No. 02-70405; Agency No. A27-428-035California463 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Jorge Alfredo Rodas petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigra *873 tion Appeals (BIA) affirming the order of the immigration court, which denied his claim for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. Because we conclude that Rodas committed an aggravated felony within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(43)(G), we also conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision. 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(C).

When reviewing whether an alien is removable because he has committed an aggravated felony, we have jurisdiction only to determine our jurisdiction, “that is, to make sure as a matter of law that the alien’s conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony.” Cedano-Viera v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir.2003); see also Flores-Miramontes v. INS, 212 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir.2000). In 1997, Rodas was convicted of grand theft and sentenced to three years of imprisonment under California Penal Code §§ 484(a), 487(a). Because California Penal Code § 484 is broader than the statutory definition of a theft offense that qualifies as an “aggravated felony” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(43)(G), we must apply the modified categorical…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.