NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 24 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA DEL CARMEN ESPINO-LOPEZ, No. 21-217 Agency No. Petitioner, A205-270-468 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 20, 2024** San Francisco, California

Before: OWENS and BADE, Circuit Judges, and BAKER, Judge.***

Maria Del Carmen Espino-Lopez, a citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing her appeal from an

* 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 M. Miller Baker, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. Immigration Judge’s order denying her application for cancellation of removal.

We have jurisdiction to consider “questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).

We review questions of law de novo, Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977, 982 (9th

Cir. 2014), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not err when it determined that Espino-Lopez’s conviction for

solicitation to commit forgery under Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 13-1002(A)

(solicitation) and 13-2002(A)(2) (forgery) was categorically a crime involving

moral turpitude (CIMT) that rendered her ineligible for cancellation of removal.

An alien is ineligible for cancellation of removal if she has been convicted of a

CIMT. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), 1229b(b)(1)(C). When an alien has

been convicted for a solicitation offense, we look at the underlying crime to

determine if the offense constitutes a CIMT. Barragan-Lopez v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 899, 903 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining that when the conviction for solicitation

is not for “unspecified criminal conduct,” the court considers the “underlying

crime[] in determining whether convictions for inchoate offenses constitute crimes

involving moral turpitude”). Here, the underlying conviction was under section

13-2002(A), which is “per se” a CIMT “[b]ecause . . . [it] requires intent to

defraud.” Espino-Castillo v. Holder, 770 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2014). Thus,

Espino-Lopez was ineligible for cancellation of removal, and the BIA did not err.

PETITION DENIED.

2 21-217