
    Izumi SHIBATA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-72157.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Nov. 2, 2015.
    Filed Nov. 20, 2015.
    Lori Beth Schoenberg, Law Offices of Lori B. Schoenberg, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Matthew Albert Connelly, Trial, Jeremy M. Bylund, Trial, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Izumi Shibata is a native and citizen of Japan and legal permanent resident of the United States. Shibata petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his application for cancellation of removal.

The BIA held him removable as a person convicted of an “aggravated felony” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The definition of “aggravated felony” includes “a crime of violence ... for which the term of imprisonment [is] at least one year.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F).

Shibata entered a nolo contendere plea to the charge of assault with a deadly weapon, in violation of California Penal Code § 245(a)(1). The charge arose out of an attempted carjacking in which Shibata struck the driver with nunchucks.

We have expressly held that assault with a deadly weapon in violation of California Penal Code § 245(a)(1) is categorically a crime of violence as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 16(a). United States v. Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186, 1196-97 (9th Cir.2009); see also United States v. Jimenez-Arzate, 781 F.3d 1062, 1063 (9th Cir.2015) (reaffirming Grajeda). Shibata’s four-year prison sentence also satisfied the requirement for a term of imprisonment for at least one year. Therefore, the BIA properly determined that Shibata was removable as charged under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), and ineligible for cancellation of removal because of his assault conviction.

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