NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 14 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ESTEFANIA SALGADO ESTRADA, No. 18-73072 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-973-688 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted October 22, 2021 Pasadena, California Before: CALLAHAN and FORREST, Circuit Judges, and AMON,** District Judge. Petitioner Estefania Salgado Estrada appeals the ruling of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”)1 finding that she was removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6), and that she was ineligible for cancellation of removal due to her conviction of a crime involving * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Carol Bagley Amon, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. 1 The BIA and IJ are referred to collectively as “the Agency.” moral turpitude under California Penal Code Section 472 (“Section 472”). Salgado Estrada appeals on five grounds, each of which are addressed in turn. We review questions of law, including whether a crime involves moral turpitude, de novo. See Barbosa v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053, 1057 (9th Cir. 2019). Factual findings of the Agency are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). We deny Salgado Estrada’s petition for review. 1. Removability. Salgado Estrada argues that the Agency erred when it found her removable as “inadmissible” under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6). Salgado Estrada has the burden to establish “by clear and convincing evidence” that she is “lawfully present in the United States pursuant to a prior admission.” Id. at § 1229a(c)(2). Salgado Estrada primarily relied on two pieces of evidence to support her argument: a two-page declaration, in which she purported to recall her memories of crossing the border as a four-year-old, and a photocopy of her border crossing card. Salgado Estrada also relied on additional evidence, consisting of the initial Notice to Appear (“NTA”), which charged Salgado Estrada as a nonimmigrant who overstayed her conditions of admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(c), and a DHS calendar entry, which indicated that Salgado Estrada had a second Alien Registration Number, and that a border card had been issued. 2 The Agency found that Salgado Estrada’s declaration was unreliable, because her attorney conceded that Salgado Estrada had no memory of her February 1997 entry and that she based her declaration on second-hand knowledge from relatives. The Agency similarly discounted the border crossing card, as the photocopy was faint and illegible, and had two unexplained dates. Similarly, the initial NTA and Calendar Entry do not constitute “clear and convincing evidence” of a lawful admission. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(2). Our review of the evidence suggests that a “reasonable adjudicator” would not be “compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 2. Crime Involving …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals