Raul Borba-Cardoso v. William Barr
- Area
- criminal
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 25 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAUL BORGES BORBA-CARDOSO, No. 17-70742 Petitioner, Agency No. A030-861-138 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 5, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: CALLAHAN and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and BENCIVENGO,*** District Judge.
Raul Borges Borba-Cardoso petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order of removal. In a concurrently filed opinion, we hold * 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). *** The Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. that perjury under section 118(a) of the California Penal Code is an “offense relating to . . . perjury” and is thus an “aggravated felony.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S). Borba was convicted under section 118(a), and we therefore lack jurisdiction over his petition for review. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(C).
PETITION DISMISSED.