Andres Romero v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 17 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANDRES ROMERO, No. 18-70754 Petitioner, Agency No. A029-142-390 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 14, 2023** Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges. Andres Romero, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture * 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). (“CAT”), cancellation of removal, and special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaragua Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s particularly serious crime determination. Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th Cir. 2015). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, and review de novo questions of law. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. Our jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of Romero’s applications for cancellation of removal and NACARA special rule cancellation of removal is limited to questions of law and constitutional claims. We lack jurisdiction to review these decisions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1622-23 (2022) (where the agency denies a form of relief listed in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), federal courts have jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and questions of law, but not factual findings and discretionary decisions); see also Lanuza v. Holder, 597 F.3d 970, 972 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (court lacks jurisdiction to review agency’s NACARA eligibility determination). The petition does not raise a colorable legal or constitutional claim over which we retain jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see also Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir. 2001) (abuse of discretion argument cloaked as due 2 18-70754 process claim not colorable). The agency did not abuse its discretion in determining that Romero’s 1999 conviction was a particularly serious crime that barred him from asylum and withholding of removal, where the agency considered the correct factors. See Avendano-Hernandez, 800 F.3d at 1077 (review limited to ensuring agency relied on the appropriate factors and proper evidence); Anaya-Ortiz v. Holder, 594 F.3d 673, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[A]ll reliable information may be considered in making a particularly serious crime determination . . . .”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, Romero’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. In light of this disposition, we need not reach Romero’s remaining contentions regarding the merits …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals