NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 27 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NIGEL NICHOLAS DOUGLAS, No. 18-72879 Petitioner, Agency No. A041-930-598 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 18, 2019** Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Nigel Nicholas Douglas, a native and citizen of Guyana, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying relief from removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s particularly serious crime determination and review for substantial evidence the denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Konou v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1120, 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. As a threshold matter, we grant Douglas’s motion to file a substitute or corrected brief (Docket Entry No. 39) and have considered the brief. The agency did not err in applying the definitions in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”) to determine that Douglas’s 1994 conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base under 21 U.S.C. § 846 made him removable and ineligible for relief. See Becker v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1000, 1002 (9th Cir. 2007) (the effective date provision of IIRIRA applies regardless of the date of the commission of the crime (citations omitted)). The BIA did not err in addressing removability, where Douglas attached a “Petition to dismiss all section 237 violations alleged in the notice to appear” to his appeal brief, and where the IJ determined Douglas was removable on four removability grounds under INA § 237. The agency properly determined that Douglas’s conviction under 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(iii) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 is an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B), where 21 U.S.C. § 846 is an offense under the Controlled Substances Act punishable by more than one year imprisonment. See 2 18-72879 Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184, 188 (2013) (a conviction under the Controlled Substances Act [21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.] that is punishable by more than one year imprisonment is an aggravated felony for immigration purposes); 21 U.S.C. § 846 (“Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense defined in this subchapter shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals