
    Alfredo Fidel MEZA, aka Alfredo Fidel Meza Chavez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73346.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 1, 2012.
    
    Filed June 5, 2012.
    Carol A. Dvorkin, Esquire, Law Office of Carol A. Dvorkin, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Liza S. Murcia, Esquire, OIL, Lindsay E. Williams, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: W. FLETCHER, CALLAHAN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       Due to the death of Judge Pamela A. Rymer, Judge William A. Fletcher, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, was drawn to replace her. Judge Fletcher has read the briefs and reviewed the record.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Alfredo Meza is ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C), because he has been convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude, which are offenses under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I); specifically, he was convicted of a theft in violation of California Penal Code Section 484(a), and check fraud in violation of California Penal Code Section 476a. See Rusz v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 1182, 1184 (9th Cir.2004); Burr v. INS, 350 F.2d 87, 91-92 (9th Cir.1965). Although these convictions were subsequently expunged pursuant to state law, such expungement does not change their immigration consequences. See Murillo-Espinoza v. INS, 261 F.3d 771, 774 (9th Cir.2001). Moreover, even if Meza qualified for a discretionary waiver of removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h), such a waiver would not erase the crimes alleged to be grounds for removability from his record for immigration purposes. See Becker v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1000,1003-04 (9th Cir.2007). DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     