U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2009

Dahilig v. Holder

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided July 22, 2009 · Schroeder, Thomas, Wardlaw

329 F. App'x 151

Counsel

Eduardo Jr. Pagdilao Dahilig, El Cen-tro, CA, pro se., OIL, Michael Christopher Heyse, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAS-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM **

Eduardo Jr. Pagdilao Dahilig, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions pro *152se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing de novo, Sandoval-Lua v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 1121, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2007), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not err in finding Dahilig removable as an aggravated felon under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) because his conviction under California Penal Code § 211 for robbery categorically constitutes a crime, of violence under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) and Dahilig was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of at least one year for his crime. See U.S. v. McDougherty, 920 F.2d 569, 573 (9th Cir. 1990) (“[Rjobbery under California law is ... by definition a crime of violence.”).

We do not have authority to order that Dahilig be released from detention. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e).

Dahilig’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.