NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 29 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARMANDO MEDINA ZAMORA, AKA No. 19-70956 Armando Medina-Zamora, AKA Armando MedinaZamora, Agency No. A213-000-889 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 27, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: WALLACE, O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. Armando Medina Zamora, a native and citizen of Mexico, timely petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his application for deferral of removal under * 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). the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA’s denial of deferral of removal under CAT for substantial evidence. See Benedicto v. Garland, 12 F.4th 1049, 1063 (9th Cir. 2021). We review questions regarding a petitioner’s mental competency de novo. See id. at 1057–58. We deny the petition. The immigration judge (IJ) did not err in finding Zamora competent within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(3). The IJ held a competency hearing and determined that Zamora understood the proceedings and could advocate on his own behalf. See Salgado v. Sessions, 889 F.3d 982, 988 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding that the petitioner was not incompetent, in part, as he “did not show an inability to answer questions” or an “inability to stay on topic”); In re M-A-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 474, 480–81 (BIA 2011) (holding that, when determining competency, an IJ “should include questions about where the hearing is taking place, the nature of the proceedings, and the respondent’s state of mind”). While Zamora was being treated for anxiety, Zamora stated—and the IJ agreed—that his anxiety would not interfere with his ability to communicate during the proceedings. See Salgado, 889 F.3d at 988 (holding that the petitioner was not incompetent, in part, as the petitioner “did not allege that [his condition] affected his ability to comprehend the proceedings”); see also In re M-A-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 480 (observing that “there are many types of mental illness that, even though serious, would not prevent a respondent from 2 meaningfully participating in immigration proceedings”). The BIA did not err in holding that Zamora waived any challenge to the IJ’s determination that he was convicted of a particularly serious crime. At most, Zamora attempted only to collaterally attack his sexual battery conviction; however, “[a] petitioner may not collaterally attack his state court conviction on a petition for review of a BIA decision.” Ramirez-Villalpando v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011). Even if this argument was not waived, Zamora’s challenge would fail on the merits. This …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals