31 F. App'x 499

Ernesto Salvador FLORES-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 00-71672. I & NS No. A17-221-033.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 4, 2002 *.

Decided March 11, 2002.

*500Before PREGERSON, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM **

Ernesto Flores-Sanchez (Flores) petitions for review of a determination by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that he is removable because he was convicted of an aggravated felony. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition.

In Matsuk v. INS,1 we upheld the BIA’s interpretation of the statutory language “[a] term of imprisonment [of] at least one year”2 as meaning a calender year of 365 days, rather than a “‘natural or lunar’ year, which is composed of 365 days and some hours.”3 Flores’ argument, like that of the petitioner in Matsuk, amounts to an assertion that “one year” refers to something longer than a 365-day calender year. Matsuk foreclosed this argument.

Flores waived the other arguments that he makes to us by failing to raise them before the BIA.4

PETITION DENIED.

Flores-Sanchez v. Ashcroft
31 F. App'x 499

Case Details

Name
Flores-Sanchez v. Ashcroft
Decision Date
Mar 11, 2002
Citations

31 F. App'x 499

Jurisdiction
United States

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!