With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Santos Eusebio Pizano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Espino-Castillo v. Holder, 770 F.3d 861, 863 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Pizano has not established any error in the agency’s determination that his conviction under California Penal Code § 530.5(c)(1) is categorically a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”) because it requires proof of an “intent to defraud” as an element of the crime. See Espino-Castillo, 770 F.3d at 863-64 (<HOLDING>) (alterations, citations, and quotation marks

A: holding that involuntary manslaughter defined either as reckless or negligent was not a crime of moral turpitude because itwas based on unintentional conduct in contrast to those crimes involving some form of evil intent it is not an offense that is mala in se and thus does not fall within the definition of crimes involving moral turpitude
B: recognizing that a court may not apply the modified categorical approach if the statute proscribes only conduct that involves moral turpitude internal quotation marks omitted
C: holding that robbery under california law categorically qualified as a crime involving moral turpitude and noting precedent in this and other circuits that theft crimes are crimes involving moral turpitude
D: recognizing the longstanding rule that crimes that have fraud as an element are categorically crimes involving moral turpitude and a court may not apply the modified categorical approach if the statute proscribes only conduct that involves moral turpitude
D.