
    Juan CARRILLO CRUZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-73147.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 6, 2011.
    Marc Karlin, Karlin & Karlin, APC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Imran Raza Zaidi, Trial, OIL, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Carrillo Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, S-Yong v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1028, 1034 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review.

Carrillo Cruz correctly contends that his conviction under California Health & Safety Code § 11351, for possession of a controlled substance for sale, is not categorically a controlled substance offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), or a drug trafficking aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). See S-Yong, 600 F.3d at 1034 (“We have previously found that California law regulates the possession and sale of many substances that are not regulated by the [federal Controlled Substances Act]”).

Carrillo Cruz, however, provides no coherent argument in his opening brief as to how the conviction documents are insufficient to demonstrate that his conviction constitutes a removable controlled substance offense, and a drug trafficking aggravated felony, under the “modified categorical approach.” See id. at 1035. Accordingly, we deem the issue waived and deny the petition for review. See San Diego Unified Port Dist. v. Giantur- co, 651 F.2d 1306, 1319 n. 36 (9th Cir.1981) (deeming issue waived where briefing contained little more than an assertion of error and court was “left to guess precisely what [appellants] meant to argue”).

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