NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 30 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NAEEM SOHAIL KHAN, AKA Mian No. 20-72191 Manzar, Agency No. A096-488-016 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted June 22, 2023 Seattle, Washington Before: NGUYEN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Dissent by Judge BUMATAY. Naeem Sohail Khan, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals reversing an immigration judge’s grant of his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition in part and grant it in part. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 1. Contrary to Khan’s argument, the immigration court had jurisdiction over Khan’s removal proceedings even though his notice to appear did not specify the time or date of his hearing. United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 755 (2023). We deny the petition as to this claim. 2. Khan argues that the Board failed to review the immigration judge’s factual findings regarding his rehabilitation for clear error. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i). Typically, we cannot review the Board’s decision that a discretionary grant of cancellation of removal is unwarranted. Ridore v. Holder, 696 F.3d 907, 911 (9th Cir. 2012). But we have jurisdiction to consider legal questions, including whether the Board “has applied the correct standard of review.” Id.; see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). In determining whether the Board reviewed the immigration judge’s factual findings for clear error, we “do not rely on the Board’s invocation of the clear error standard.” Soto-Soto v. Garland, 1 F.4th 655, 659 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Rodriguez v. Holder, 683 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir. 2012)). Instead, the Board is “obligated to explain why” the immigration judge’s findings were clearly erroneous. Vitug v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1056, 1063 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Ridore, 696 F.3d at 917). Error is clear only if the findings are “‘illogical or implausible,’ or without ‘support in inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record.’” 2 Rodriguez, 683 F.3d at 1170 (quoting Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 577 (1985)). “Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” Anderson, 470 U.S. at 574. In evaluating Khan’s rehabilitation, the Board did not review the immigration judge’s factual findings for clear error. The immigration judge found that, during Khan’s testimony in immigration court, he “admitted freely and openly” to violating court orders that prohibited him from contacting his ex-wife and children, and he “expressed remorse” for his misconduct. The record contained evidence to support that view. Khan testified that he violated court orders on many occasions; that …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals