Flores-Luna v. Holder

MEMORANDUM ** Efrain Flores-Luna, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo whether a particular conviction constitutes an aggravated felony, Randhawa v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review. The IJ did not err in finding Flores-Luna removable as an aggravated felon under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) because his conviction under CaLPenal Code § 496(a) categorically constitutes a theft offense and Flores-Luna was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of at least one year for his crime. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G). Contrary to Flores-Luna’s contention, a conviction under section 496(a) meets the intent requirement for this circuit’s generic definition of a “theft offense.” See Randhawa, 298 F.3d at 1153-54 (requisite intent may be inferred from offender’s knowledge that he or she possessed stolen property); People v. Dishman, 128 Cal.App.3d 717, 721-722, 180 Cal.Rptr. 467 (1982) (to obtain convic [408] tion under section 496(a), prosecution must prove defendant knew property was stolen). Flores-Luna’s contention that section 496(a) is overbroad because it allows conviction for aiding and abetting is foreclosed by Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 127 S.Ct. 815, 166 L.Ed.2d 683 (2007). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. Footnotes [**] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.